Holdouts make out
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Wednesday, December 23, 2009Memo to Martha Coakley: If you’re going to sell out, could you at least up the ante a little?
Coakley, of course, having first insisted she couldn’t possibly vote for a health care bill that had restrictions on abortion funding now says she will “reluctantly vote for this bill.”
The Senate version of the bill also lacks the so-called public option that Coakley said during her U.S. Senate Democratic primary campaign was a critical element for “reform.”
What’s your take on the tone and substance of the Herald opinion piece?
Please share widely!
Cheerleading for the right and endorsing losing candidates
for her hypothetical yes vote on the Senate bill without two things SHE wanted; abortion service access restrictions removed and a Public Option.
<
p>
<
p>A better politician might have said, “I could vote ‘yea’ on the bill if Medicare Option was included as a compromise by the conference committee, and if the Seante abortion language not Stupak is in the conference bill.”
<
p>Nowhere in this editorial does the Herald “Cheerlead for the right” or “endorse a losing candidates.” Did you read it?
I was just discussing the debate elsewhere, and described the answer to the panhandler question thusly:
<
p>Reply by LaughingPlanet:
<
p>Precisely.
“What’s your take …’ you ask…
<
p>My take is that NeilSagan does not like Martha Coakley…never did, never will…and takes every opportunity here and in response to Globe columns at boston.com to point out his displeasure with Coakley…that’s my take on NeilSagan’s continued posts…I would like to chalk it up to a loser’s sour grapes, but I think it goes deeper than that…even Mike Capuano got over it.
on the tone and substance
of the Herald opinion piece?
<
p>You can read
a whole sentence!?
If not,
I’ll break
it
up
into
manageable parts
for you.
<
p>The day Martha shows up at BMG and responds to the questions about her positions on civil rights and government authorityis the day she shows me she gives a hoot about spending any of her time engaging with voters. You should know I tweeted her twitter account @MarthaCoakley once a day for 14 days, Dec 11-24 with a link to the page with questions, asking is she would answer them. No response. No answers. Want to take a bet that the next time we see her here is when she rides through on her broom the night before the election? Just wait until we have Kerry and Coakley two Senators who can’t be bothered to engage with plebes unless there’s something they want. Enough about me and you. Let’s talk about the merits of the opinion piece and the debate on wbztv.com.
sometimes you can’t help seeing all the way through.
from HLPeary on either the wbz debate or the op-ed.
<
p>How about some impressive observations on those topics from a discerning viewer?
…and I say that as one who voted for Capuano:
<
p>For good or ill Capuano caved in the face of Coakley’s hammering re: Stupak, for no discernable political benefit.
<
p>Furthermore, all Coakely did was to fill a vacuum on the ground that Capuano had all the time and resources to fill instead. Had Capuano recruited more workhorses like Kate and created a competent field operation, he would have been the nominee.
<
p>Now for the Herald op-ed:
<
p>The Herald piece was accurate, but of no electoral significance whatsoever. Given her history, blaming Coakley for opportunism is like blaming water for being wet; and like it or not, it got her nominated, didn’t it?.
<
p>…and the debate:
<
p>Scot Brown’s campaign is run by menopausal College Republicans (both genders), and the debate reflected that. Joe Kennedy is Ayn Rand in drag.
<
p>
A female Kerry in every respect-has no core principles, flip flops, embraces right wing talking points, and will only show up to be with the people the first tue of november every 6 years. Did I mention not even an attempt at constituent services or bringing home the bacon? Think of how much money we are going to lose electing this fraud.
I also believe she will be a duplicate John Kerry. No spunk, spirit, or enthusiasm. She will snooze in between catastrophes. She will be patting herself on the back for half measures and inadequate effort. Between this election, health care reform, and wall street bailouts, it seems hibernation would be a great way to spend the winter. NO CAN DO…got bills to pay! Thank goodness I got a HappyLight for Christmas.
Really.
As HLPeary noted, your issues with Coakley seem to go much deeper than her failure to respond to your tweets or your other questions. Have you ever tried just calling her campaign office and talking to her staff? Prior to the primary my wife did just that, because she was concerned about the death penalty and the amicus brief in the Alabama case. She was routed to someone who spent a fair amount of time talking with her about it, and came away with her concerns addressed.
<
p>My guess is there’s nothing this woman can do to make you like her.
NO, she’s Harry Potter.
<
p>
<
p>Instead, you might say why you agree or disagree with the op-ed.
My take is that…
<
p>~I hate Scott Brown because all he can say is that we need tax cuts to create jobs, but fails to say that the Bush tax cuts have contributed greatly to the current state of our nation’s debt and that we’ve also lost jobs under those tax cuts. I hate the “tax cuts to create jobs” line. It’s a lie. I’m tired of the lies.
<
p>~As much as I want to like Martha Coakley, I haven’t been able to find a feeling of trust. She is capable of talking out both sides of her mouth. I absolutely hate that in an elected official. She will most likely win. I will not be knocking on doors for her or promoting her as a candidate because I can only do that for a candidate I truly believe in.
<
p>~I tried to find redeeming qualities in Joe Kennedy but could not. He falls too much on the side of let’s do nothing so the country and world can fend for itself. I know people like that. The type where a bomb could drop right in front of them and they would walk around it and carry on. While I agree that butting out is sometime a good option, it isn’t always the answer. I think for him it would always be the answer.
<
p>I didn’t read the Herald piece.
<
p>
I’d have to watch the debate again but I don’t think there was a single question that Scott Brown didn’t work tax cut into the answer.
<
p>What I’ve noticed about Martha is that she prefers not to be cornered by a question and so will answer in a way that isn’t directly responsive. When it’s a persistent interviewer like Jim Braude, he comes back again and presses which makes it apparent Martha has been non-responsive. She then explains the difference between her answer and the question but only after her non-responsiveness has blown it up a bit. If she could anticipate that her answer was going to come off as non responsive, she could provide a more complex answer that moves from the question to the answer in a more descriptive way. The, she wont come off as elusive, elitist or non-responsive.
<
p>Joe Kennedy has a tongue jut tick. When he finished his point his pushes his tongue forward like a lizard. I know it shouldn’t matter one bit but it’s annoying. He really went after Scott much more than Martha, and he scored some good points but yea the camera doesn’t like him as much as it likes Scott and Martha.
<
p>The Herald editorial is about 10 two sentence paragraphs written to an eighth grade level and it says Martha should have gotten something, some valuable consideration for MA in return for her voluntary, premature Yea on the Senate Health Bill.
<
p>
Coakley criticizes Brown for claiming to “hold the line on spending” when in fact he’s voted in favor of the conference report or the Senate’s passage of the state budget in each of the last 10 years that’s increased from $20.8 billion to $28.0 billion from 2000 to 2009.
<
p>
The three of them couldn’t even piss in Ted Kennedy’s pot credibly if you ask me, let alone follow in his footsteps. Its a shame that these are the candidates that showed up. I should contact the Cambridge Election Commission now and save them the postage for the blank ballot I’d send back from Chicago.
<embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://www.necn.com/avp32.swf?
or9tCGBds;m7APEMBF$Qo$dsH3V'QiElEv*!|(>AOC~1MnS-8C#0*H4'zXXs[0s/W0fCRi^*x'C&qln9-<>lw[B2se$C I3cDR JW^y(fATQ3Ue@OCk~0TDz_N!5RS#A{s(;0A} O@2<Mvy~9@cMG[$GcVHV[Js1he[(48Xe&NU!7b:bxX]J8'OV[#gU&={T3dk8)GQMQ*Ot6I/dksV~:vdTo2,ub3zibx48f]t;Lqkm;yC_9(S]e}XI#n_]cgmGON71/1gvQ{R5|fN60BGf~JH..w^dqt?@M#82B” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″><
p>Should Democrats back the Globe’s efforts to have a one-on-one Coakley Brown debate?
It’s only fair if all the candidate on the ballot are allowed to debate. After watching the WBZ TV debate it is clear that Brown’s holdout for one-on-one debates is untenable. Kennedy is clearly a legitimate presence.
<
p>The senate bill has a significant problem, middle class “affordability.” It would be extremely unfortunate for Democrats if Republicans co-opt this issue, which is what Brown seems to be doing here as Coakley defends the bill.
“A conversation with moderator Jon Keller following the first televised debate of the Massachusetts Senate campaign, December 22, 2009.” – Dan Kennedy
<
p>