Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. Baker bombed.  Baker spoke as if he had memorized a bunch of three by five cards and was reciting them.  His body language was at best wooden, and at other times, came across to me as untruthful or depressed.  A poor “performance” with mostly negative messaging and nothing positive to offer going forward.

    <

    p>Cahill was the most nimble, with the best voice tones and the fastest on his feet of the four, whether or not I agreed with everything Cahill had to say, I know a sharp performance when I see it (I once produced plays for a community theater group with casts of 100 or more, after all).  Cahill projected confidence and energy.  His “pay as you go” plan avoiding further collective debt, and the fact he has made that happen in the school building program is a bright spot in the current functioning of state government.   His focus on trimming down the corporate welfare is of interest, too.  Unfortunately, he buys in to the fallacy that gambling creates jobs and economic activity.  I have to wonder – is he fooled or trying to fool the rest of us about gambling?

    <

    p>Patrick was at ease.  Unlike Baker, Patrick at least was “present” rather than wooden and rehearsed.  Patrick was not “on target” with the questions as quickly as Cahill, though, nor did he project the same level of energy.  I remember some of what Cahill had to say, perhaps because Cahill kept it simple and is used to the blood sport of Quincy politics.  Patrick came across as a competent corporate manager sitting at ease in the boardroom.

    <

    p>Stein knew more than any of the others about healthcare.  In fact, it is run away costs and the unequal bargaining power of the near monopolies out there that are driving costs – not unions.  But then healthcare is on my mind just now as out family is paying about $2000 a month out of pocket to retain access to healthcare – and we cannot afford to keep doing that going forward.

    <

    p>It will be interesting to see if the polls reflect any collective response.

    • Cahill invokes supply side economics? (!)

      <

      p>Baker was wooden and aggreived, Patrick was condescending.

      <

      p>Stein kept making one odd remark – that we need to help ‘regular people’, and keep police, firemen, librarians, teachers at work and help them.  ALL of them have better health care and benefits than similar private sector workers, and have had their jobs saved by stimulus spending.  They’ve HAD some help.  How about plumbers, waitresses, grocery store cashiers…(I really was WAITING for her to mention a profession/job other than a governmental one, adn it never happened).  

      • Was it that he was the only candidate to acknowledge that the other candidates had something useful to say, or had done useful things?  Like thanking Charlie Baker for helping with Patrick’s ethics reform success?  Or like complimenting Cahill for his work with the School Building Authority?  That’s condescending?

        • You all did see that on the Lupercal
          I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
          Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
          Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
          And, sure, he is an honourable man.

  2. Looks like Charlie Baker stole the mole on his face from John Edwards.
    Think his mole got more air time than he did.
    Also, stop getting ‘little boy’ …cheap haircuts and who buys your suits for you – Michael Dukaksis. You looked like an unmade bed in that cheap wrinkled suit, cheap and poorly knoted tie and ugly colored shirt for TV.
    Remember, how Richard Mihous Nixon looked in his debate with John F. Kennedy? Visual images leave a stronger impression than anything that comes out of your mouth.
    Charlie Baker- you lost this debate on all points and you are clearly not ready for prime-time.

  3. Quick video grab, low quality. This is at the very end of part 1. Ouch, he’s going to feel that in the morning. Baker tried to play hardball and got nailed. Absolutely dumbfounded, nothing to counter with, best part of the debate.

  4. My gut feeling, though:

    <

    p>Couldn’t this debate have happened on September 15th? I would have liked this debate to have been for State Auditor and/or State Treasurer. There are races that matter which will be partially decided a week from this moment — and Governor wasn’t one of them (as important as that race is). I’m glad they had the debate, and I’m going to watch it, but I do think the planners had poor form in jumping the ‘down-ticket’ constitutional offices.  

  5. Folks that follow me know that I care most about immigration policy mostly because I’m an migrant to the U.S. from Guatemala, and migrants can’t vote themselves.

    <

    p>I’m definitely not voting for Cahill or Baker after their answer on immigration.  Both are clearly nativists.  The Gov. was lukewarm on immigration, Jill Stein gave the most pro-migrant answers, but I’m not sure if she can get the job done.  

    <

    p>Still deciding between Patrick and Stein, honestly.  If the Gov. had done more for in-state tuition, I would have voted hands down for him and would be organizing to help get him elected right now.  Instead I still expending energy fighting for the rights of migrant youth federally and locally.

Archives