ADD TV. It seems that Capuano was given a bit of lithium before being trotted out today, so he seems to be a lot less passionate aggressive. Khazei must be feeling good about his position, because he’s being less aggressive this time around than in previous debates and hasn’t interrupted anybody yet from what I can tell.
<
p>Martha is doing a fine job being invisible and preserving her lead, and Pagliuca is continuing his extended try-out to be Capuano’s chief of staff.
The valium wore off…Capuano goes over the top in reacting to Pagliuca’s distortion of his health care vote. That will probably become “the moment” of the debate. Coakley smartly wore black tonight, neatly blending into the background.
frankskeffingtonsays
…until Cap started snapping at Pags and began to sound like a meanie.
haydukesays
I’m sorry, I’m all for having someone who actually cares and fights for his positions. I’m tired of Senators who are so serene that they roll over and play dead whenever a tough issue comes up.
<
p>Democrats constantly complain about the spinelessness of the their reps in congress, but as soon as someone comes along who has a bit of bite to them, we instantly jump on them as being too mean. If you want to keep watching while dems fail on major policy objectives, and then sit around and wonder why the republicans cram legislation through the Senate with bare majorities, by all means, vote for the nice person.
kaj314says
I like that he gets angry. If Steve Pagliuca was lecturing me about health care and jobs, I would get angry. If Martha Coakley tried to answer my question about our civil liberties yes AND no I would get similarly excited in my response.
<
p>Here is my quick overview:
<
p>Capuano cleraly had the best understanding of foreign policy, he clearly had the most knowledge about the big isseus of the day, and the best track record with past issues. Pretty clearly, Capuano won this one.
<
p>I see why Martha doesnt show up to many debates. It really doesn’t seem to make a difference if she is there or not. While the others couldnt wait to discuss the issues, she only answered when she was asked questions.
<
p>On the health care issue, I thought Capuano was right on substance. He may have been too passionate about approach. But Pagliuca would have voted for anything and Coakley could only cite personal reasons. Personal reasons are important when making decisions, but Capuano was the onyl one to offer a complete outlook. Healthcare reform has many facets. If the right balance is struck, its a good bill, if there isnt a balnace, if it doesnt achieve its goals, or gives up too much to ahcieve them, then its not a good bill. He clearly thought this through.
<
p>
uffishthoughtsays
She even managed to dodge the questions she was asked directly. Not that I’m surprised, we’ve seen it from her through the whole campaign. She keeps quiet, fades into the background, and avoids taking any kind of decisive stand. Wouldn’t want to accidentally draw attention to her stances or anything. Easiest way not to alienate voters is simply not to talk to them. Hey, at least she’s consistent.
neilsagansays
Just on the odd chance that somebody from the Coakley campaign is reading this:
If I get one more robo-call from the Coakley campaign or the SEIU or WVWV or Emily’s List, I’m staying home on primary day in return for making it a living hell to be a Coakley supporter.
trang73vusays
saying that she’ll be a leader and that Capuano just votes is absurd and not based in reality. Capuano has consistently proven himself to be a leader and vote with principle and courage, even when it’s not a popular vote (No Child Left Behind, Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc etc).
<
p>I loved his answer about taking a stand against genocide in Sudan – it was an unexpected answer and I appreciated it.
foreverdemsays
It’s good to see that she’s finally asserting herself, since that may or may not be a necessary quality when fighting for your constituents in the Senate…but come on, even people who do not support Capuano should be able to appreciate the work he has done for our Commonwealth.
<
p>So I guess it’s a good sign that now we know she’s alive but come on, her attack was weak, and like you said, totally baseless.
jasiusays
This tidbit from boston.com doesn’t help out Pags:
<
p>
Pagliuca, using his Twitter account, put out a message: “Team Pags out in front of WBZ HQ ahead of tonight’s debate.” His supporters may be disappointed if they show up with signs at that station’s Boston studios; the debate is in Needham, at WCVB’s studios.
katmandontsays
Coakley is wrong, you cannot “structure” a PATRIOT Act that can protect our civil liberties. And she was wrong on the whole “managing my money is different than managing tax payer money”. I was surprised that she didn’t do better. Those two questions were definite stumbling blocks.
neilsagansays
between when Obama started to announce his plan and when he finished.
Based on what I know now about the President’s planned troop increase, I do not believe that we should send additional troops into Afghanistan. I believe we should begin the process of bringing our troops home.
– Martha Coakley
neilsagansays
Attorney General Martha Coakley said tonight that she believed the controversial USA Patriot Act could be structured so that it would both protect people from terrorism and protect their civil liberties.
But one of her opponents in the Democratic primary for the US Senate, Congressman Michael Capuano, said, “That’s not what the Patriot Act does. … The Patriot Act takes away civil liberties.”
It’s distracting and the comments are mostly inane.
ADD TV. It seems that Capuano was given a bit of lithium before being trotted out today, so he seems to be a lot less passionate aggressive. Khazei must be feeling good about his position, because he’s being less aggressive this time around than in previous debates and hasn’t interrupted anybody yet from what I can tell.
<
p>Martha is doing a fine job being invisible and preserving her lead, and Pagliuca is continuing his extended try-out to be Capuano’s chief of staff.
The valium wore off…Capuano goes over the top in reacting to Pagliuca’s distortion of his health care vote. That will probably become “the moment” of the debate. Coakley smartly wore black tonight, neatly blending into the background.
…until Cap started snapping at Pags and began to sound like a meanie.
I’m sorry, I’m all for having someone who actually cares and fights for his positions. I’m tired of Senators who are so serene that they roll over and play dead whenever a tough issue comes up.
<
p>Democrats constantly complain about the spinelessness of the their reps in congress, but as soon as someone comes along who has a bit of bite to them, we instantly jump on them as being too mean. If you want to keep watching while dems fail on major policy objectives, and then sit around and wonder why the republicans cram legislation through the Senate with bare majorities, by all means, vote for the nice person.
I like that he gets angry. If Steve Pagliuca was lecturing me about health care and jobs, I would get angry. If Martha Coakley tried to answer my question about our civil liberties yes AND no I would get similarly excited in my response.
<
p>Here is my quick overview:
<
p>Capuano cleraly had the best understanding of foreign policy, he clearly had the most knowledge about the big isseus of the day, and the best track record with past issues. Pretty clearly, Capuano won this one.
<
p>I see why Martha doesnt show up to many debates. It really doesn’t seem to make a difference if she is there or not. While the others couldnt wait to discuss the issues, she only answered when she was asked questions.
<
p>On the health care issue, I thought Capuano was right on substance. He may have been too passionate about approach. But Pagliuca would have voted for anything and Coakley could only cite personal reasons. Personal reasons are important when making decisions, but Capuano was the onyl one to offer a complete outlook. Healthcare reform has many facets. If the right balance is struck, its a good bill, if there isnt a balnace, if it doesnt achieve its goals, or gives up too much to ahcieve them, then its not a good bill. He clearly thought this through.
<
p>
She even managed to dodge the questions she was asked directly. Not that I’m surprised, we’ve seen it from her through the whole campaign. She keeps quiet, fades into the background, and avoids taking any kind of decisive stand. Wouldn’t want to accidentally draw attention to her stances or anything. Easiest way not to alienate voters is simply not to talk to them. Hey, at least she’s consistent.
saying that she’ll be a leader and that Capuano just votes is absurd and not based in reality. Capuano has consistently proven himself to be a leader and vote with principle and courage, even when it’s not a popular vote (No Child Left Behind, Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc etc).
<
p>I loved his answer about taking a stand against genocide in Sudan – it was an unexpected answer and I appreciated it.
It’s good to see that she’s finally asserting herself, since that may or may not be a necessary quality when fighting for your constituents in the Senate…but come on, even people who do not support Capuano should be able to appreciate the work he has done for our Commonwealth.
<
p>So I guess it’s a good sign that now we know she’s alive but come on, her attack was weak, and like you said, totally baseless.
This tidbit from boston.com doesn’t help out Pags:
<
p>
Coakley is wrong, you cannot “structure” a PATRIOT Act that can protect our civil liberties. And she was wrong on the whole “managing my money is different than managing tax payer money”. I was surprised that she didn’t do better. Those two questions were definite stumbling blocks.
between when Obama started to announce his plan and when he finished.
That element I very much support.
to find one thing in every bill that youc support but that’s not really the issue.