Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Capuano off the mark with calls for “bloody” protests in WI [updated]

By

UPDATE (by David): Kudos to Rep. Capuano, who has apologized for his comments.

“I strongly believe in standing up for worker rights and my passion for preserving those rights may have gotten the best of me yesterday in an unscripted speech,” the Somerville Democrat said in a statement released this afternoon. “I wish I had used different language to express my passion and I regret my choice of words.”

That’s how you make an issue like this go away.  Well done.

Matt Murphy, reporting for the State House News Service via the Dorchester Reporter (hat tip, Red Mass Group):

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, FEB. 22, 2011…..As throngs of union members and their supporters crushed onto Beacon Street for a late afternoon rally in support of Wisconsin workers, the three members of the state’s Congressional delegation seen as most likely to challenge U.S. Sen. Scott Brown next year were front and center. …

“This is going to be a struggle at least for the next two years. Let’s be serious about this. They’re not going to back down and we’re not going to back down. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of America,” Capuano said, referring to the Tea Party counter-protestors as a “couple of nuts in the background.”

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” he continued.

Esteemed BMGer Rob has more at Red Mass Group. You can also read pages of political invective in the comments at The Hill’s coverage of the story.

Poor rhetoric, and poor politics. Hardly necessary to use language like this to fire up a crowd of passionate supporters, and hardly the way to position oneself for a state-wide challenge to Scott Brown in a commonwealth with a huge block of independent voters. I wonder if there will be a clarification from the representative’s office. Perhaps he meant “muddy” (it is wet and snowy in Wisconsin), or “ruddy” (protesting in chilly air can give one a healthy flush), or “buddy” (strength in numbers). Can you think of other words representative Capuano might have used instead?

Representative’s Capuano’s post yesterday here on BMG outlining his thinking on the Wisconsin crisis, which Charley had the honor to promote to our front page, made his case in a far more convincing fashion.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. is waxing indignation at the term.  Other referrals ‘to a little bloody’ involve body leakages of one sort or another.

    <

    p>Google bloody and you get this from Wikipedia

    <

    p>

    Expletive attributives

    In sentences such as

       “You’d better pray for a bloody miracle if you want to avoid bankruptcy.”
       “That was a bloody good meal.”
       “The bloody policeman tailed me all the way home.”
       “I bloody hope he bloody chokes on his bloody pretzels.”
       “You’d better bloody well make it happen!”

    bloody contributes nothing to the meaning. Rather, it suggests the strength of feeling (usually anger or irritation, but often admiration, etc.) of the speaker. In having no meaning, it resembles the syntactic expletives discussed above; in these uses, bloody is an expletive. An expletive attributive is a grammatical intensifier.  

    <

    p>Where, you might ask, did the old boy from Somerville learn to use expletive attributes?    

    • If Capuano’s remarks have been accurately reported, then he was clearly not using “bloody” as an expletive or a “grammatical intensifier.”  That is a largely British usage, and Capuano has rarely been heard saying “Cheerio!” as he departs a room.

      <

      p>If Cap’s reported remarks are accurate, he should retract, apologize, and move on.  It was a dumb thing to say.

    • besides the usual f—-ing.

      <

      p>Republican Blood libel

      <

      p>Put those Republicans into the crosshairs.

      <

      p>Get out the target map…………….

      <

      p>Lighten up folks…………

    • Could this actually be the good congressman doing voice-over work in a previously unknown career before his entry into politics?

      <

      p>

      <

      p>I still like my “get a little ruddy when necessary” theory.

    • Too bad bloody in all your examples refer to the British usage which is very different.  You know like boot for your foot or boot as in the trunk of a car.  Nice try explaining away inflamatory speech though.

  3. and the idea of getting “a little bloody” is ambiguous, but it’s important to keep the divide between us and tea party wingnuts.

    <

    p>As much as I want to say it, I’ve been trying to keep the word “war” out of what I say for the same reason. Labor is in a political war for its life; diplomacy was rejected by Walker. The gloves have to come off, politically speaking.

    <

    p>The only advantageous way for labor to get bloody would be for the state police or national guard to start beating up protesters. And with teachers protesting, that isn’t bloody likely.  

    • Personally I would like to thank all of the union members, elected officials and supporters who came out for the rally to Stand with the Wisconsin Workers.

      <

      p>All the unions want to do is preserve their legal rights to negotiate.  That is why were on the State House steps yesterday and it was a great event to bring us all together.

      <

      p>Thanks to all the members of MTA, AFT-MA, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Jobs With Justice, NAGE, AFSCME, Working Massachusetts, Massachusetts Nurses Association, Massachusetts  Professional Firefighters, Moses, IATSE, all the building trades and public safety unions for participating.  I also want to thank the Boston Police Department and Massachusetts State Police for making the afternoon a success.

      • because behind the scenes they were creating a mass effort to get all of their members to these protests to support the unions and all of the workers in this country.  

    • Labor is in a political war for its life; diplomacy was rejected by Walker. The gloves have to come off, politically speaking.

      <

      p>Absolutely!

      <

      p>I love Mike Capuano.  I supported him in his campaign for Senate last Fall. He’s a real fighter in the tradition of Ted Kennedy – whose voice we miss right now.

      <

      p>We need Mike or somebody like him in the Senate. We need a someone in our corner, someone who would fight for the middle class and speak for those who have no voice in this country.  Mike fits the bill nicely, and, I believe that he can beat Scott Brown.

      <

      p>Scott Brown is a good-looking, easy-going guy with an interesting life story, but he’s not going to fight for the rights of workers in this country.

      <

      p>He was on Morning Joe yesterday and Mike Barnicle asked him what he thought of the Wisconsin situation.  Brown said that although he, himself, was a union member for many years, he believed that everything should be on the table in Wisconsin even collective bargaining.  This is the guy that took Ted’s seat?  ugh.

      <

      p>I happened to be at the rally yesterday, and I heard Capuano speak from the heart to the crowd. I took what he said to mean that this is one of those times when emails won’t work and that this is a time to take to the streets and fight for workers’ rights.
      (not an actual fist fight)

      <

      p>So I’ll proudly stand with Mike Capuano, just like he stood with us yesterday! (and everyday in Congress)

      <

      p>

  4. I don’t doubt Cap was aiming for something on the order of “get your hands dirty.”

    <

    p>But he missed.

  5. and I think it’s great that he speaks it.  Getting a “little bloody” doesn’t necessarily mean to attack and
    fight others; it’s the same thing as getting a “little dirty”.  

    <

    p>For example:  A ditch digger comes home with bloody blisters after a hard days work.  The mechanic knicks his knuckles numerous times in day, coming home with blood on his shirt from wiping away the damage.

    <

    p>If you don’t live the life, then you don’t know the language, and Capuano knows the language so KUDOS to him.

  6. you see that he is comparing with sitting at the computer sending emails, which while important also, you aren’t going to draw blood or get dirty or sweaty doing so.

  7. he needs to practice finding alternatives.  How else could have said it, while still speaking the language?  Let’s see.

    <

    p>Well just replacing dirty or sweaty with bloody wouldn’t work because it still might be offensive to some.  I mean afterall, who really likes dirt or sweat and wants to participate in it.

    <

    p>Let me think and I’ll get back to you on that.

    • with dirty or sweaty won’t work.  I’m in too  much of a hurry. Shouldn’t even be doing this right now.  

    • Of course that would have worked.  It’s very easy to take “get a little bloody” as meaning you got blood on your hands while you were beating the crap out of someone else – in fact, that’s the most obvious way to read it.  No such mistake is possible with “dirty” or “sweaty.”

      <

      p>We should not condone rhetoric like this on our side, any more than we condone it on the other.

      • to you. I didn’t read it that way at all. I won’t disagree that he could have used better language, but that’s no reason to crucify the guy, David.

        <

        p>I’m kind of sick of the notion that if a Democrats slips up once with some kind of speech, we all run away screaming and abandon the dude. We do it almost every time. Enough is enough.

        <

        p>When Capuano talks about rolling up our sleeves and ‘getting a little bloody’ in defending the middle in working class, somehow that’s class warfare and bad. But when Republicans talk about busting unions, cutting taxes for the rich and helping out corporations — all at the cost of the vast majority of us who are either middle or working class — that’s never “class warfare” and somehow acceptable. I’m calling BS.

        <

        p>The Republicans started the class warfare, we have a duty to end it. Capuano’s got a track record of putting his foot in his mouth, but the guy’s also got a record of being on our side consistently and, for all his boisterous rhetoric (most of which I think is a good thing), he’s a pretty clean politician with a good track record of results, effectiveness and constituent services — in other words, he’s exactly the kind of politician who we should be rewarding, but for some reason the left is constantly punishing him… we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

        • did I say anything about Republican policies being acceptable, or not being “class warfare”?  I think not, so let’s not put too many words in my mouth.

          <

          p>Nor did I “abandon the dude.”  I criticized his rhetoric, and suggested that he retract the remark.  He did.  I congratulated him.  I’m happy to move on; I trust you are as well.

          • that can be misconstrued, we should turn our firing squads on them. I’m of course talking about the broader movement here. Republicans don’t do that, and their guys are doing far worse stuff than mispeaking… they’re trying to destroy the working and middle class, and the democratic party with it. They want to turn us into new-age serfs.

            <

            p>We have to stay focused on that, and not allow ourselves to be distracted. That’s not to say if some Democrat out there does something really bad that we shouldn’t focus on that — but someone saying something that can be taken out of context isn’t an example of that. Real corruption? Sure. DINO/Corporate hackery? Absolutely. Yet, Capuano is on our side and if a bunch of right-wing hacks are going to take his words out of context for using the language of the working class, we should be defending him, not letting the tail wag the dog.

  9. Perhaps if he included dirt and sweat with blood, it would have made a difference and then couldn’t have been spun to ,mean that he endorses violence.

    <

    p>

    “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”  ~Theodore Roosevelt

    <

    p>Ed O’reilly used this quote in his concession speech. I think he was referring to the hard work all of his supporters did to support his candidacy and his cause.  He never once asked us to hit anyone.

    <

    p>I don’t believe that Mike Capuano wants us to get violent and draw blood from others.  It could be that he hopes we work hard enough to get blisters and maybe a few paper cuts from campaign handouts.  For him, I just might be willing to do that.  However, If Elizabeth Warren runs, that is going to be a difficult choice for me to make.

  10. For the post and your comments.  They are right on the mark.  Capuano’s comments were inappropriate and he should know better.

    <

    p>After the events in AZ in early January and the ensuing discussions about the need for civility in our discourse, a call I recall Capuano espousing himself, it is disappointing to see this language from my Representative.

    <

    p>Whether it was the heat of the moment, going off script, whatever, there is no place for the language used in the discussion being had.  There is passion enough for those protesting on both sides, no need to add potentially inflamatory language to the discussion.

    <

    p>We will move towards more civility when we equally condemn such statements from those with whom we agree as well as those with whom we do not.

    <

    p>Thanks again Bob and David (and Charley too) for your display of civility and leadership.

  11. as a man who incites violence, I say that you are trying to throw dust on his face, which is what happens when one puts themselves in an arena surrounded by people who don’t understand the different walks of life that make up this great nation.

    <

    p>As I said, Mike probably should be more careful going forward, since even the mere mention of blood causes fearful imagery of death and violence.  But I say we should give him a pass on this one and not perpetuate the misunderstanding.  Because this is nothing more than a misunderstanding.    

  12. I agree with David —

    <

    p>

    I don’t think for a second that Capuano was actually calling for violence in the streets of Wisconsin.

    <

    p>The quote doesn’t read that way. Only one thing does: the headline of this diary.

  13. He said “get bloody.” In the context of labor struggle, “getting bloody” tends to mean standing your ground and getting bloodied by government or corporate thugs. That is just historic fact. He should not backpedal on this. He is not threatening.

    • I’m actually pretty shocked at the weird contortions people are making here. It’s really little wonder why Democrats have a historical record of losing when we turn on our own so easily.

  14. I do believe Scott Walker has threatened to call in the National Guard.  It is not unheard of in U.S. labor history for the police, National Guard, etc. to physically attack demonstrators.  I agree with the characterization “get a little dirty,” as in out in the streets.

    <

    p>My question is: When did everyone on the left become so milquetoast?  FDR got a lot of things through because there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets risking — yes — the spilling of their own blood for positive change.  Fast forward to 2008-2011, and the only rage I hear is coming from the poor benighted Tea Party folks, while on the left it’s “that Paul Krugman really shouldn’t be so partisan, it’s too shrill.”  

    <

    p>Am I really the only one who wants to fight these guys — not with violence but with hard, trenchant language that calls out GOP hypocrisy for what it is?

    • FDR got a lot of things through because there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets risking — yes — the spilling of their own blood for positive change.  Fast forward to 2008-2011, and the only rage I hear is coming from the poor benighted Tea Party folks, while on the left it’s “that Paul Krugman really shouldn’t be so partisan, it’s too shrill.”  

      <

      p>Is that really how you spell milquetoast?  

        • FDR was speaking in the mid-30’s, a time of tremendous industrial conflict.  Collective bargaining proved not to be the all-out war that seemed possible in the midst of massive general strikes such as those in 1934.  A concern of the Roosevelt administration was that the Communist Party would step into the breach if the government plain stopped functioning because of a massive strike.  None of this is an issue in Wisconsin in 2011, although you may think the CP already has seized power though Obama. FDR may well have

          <

          p>In any event, by no means do I think FDR was right about everything.  And I could just as easily point out all the reasons Reagan would be facing a Tea Party challenger today.    

    • How easie is it to call Rogue and Villain, and that wittily! But how hard to make a Man appear a Fool, a Blockhead, or a Knave, without using any of those opprobrious terms! To spare the grossness of the Names, and to do the thing yet more severely, is to draw a full Face, and to make the Nose and Cheeks stand out, and yet not to employ any depth of Shadowing. This is the Mystery of that Noble Trade, which yet no Master can teach to his Apprentice: He may give the Rules, but the Scholar is never the nearer in his practice. Neither is it true, that this fineness of Raillery is offensive. A witty Man is tickl’d while he is hurt in this manner, and a Fool feels it not. The occasion of an Offence may possibly be given, but he cannot take it. If it be granted that in effect this way does more Mischief; that a Man is secretly wounded, and though he be not sensible himself, yet the malicious World will find it for him: yet there is still a vast difference betwixt the slovenly Butchering of a Man, and the fineness of a stroke that separates the Head from the Body, and leaves it standing in its place.
      A Discourse concerning the Original and Progress of Satire (1693)

    • Too many on our side not only aren’t willing to fight, but think fighting is unseemly. I find these people are usually the kinds of progressives and liberals who don’t come from Blue Collar families.

    • …are the Koch brothers diverting the public with the attack on contracts to loot Wisconsin assets? The bill, 16.896, calls for the ability to sell with or without bid, public energy assets..

      <

      p>Is there to be a “compromise” that will let public unions retain their rights but sell out the public energy assets to Koch?

      <

      p>The bill is here. Section 44 regards the sale of energy assets.

      <

      p>“The name of “reform” simply covers what is latently a process of the theft of the national heritage.”  –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  15. for those union rights (Homestead, Ludlow, Republic Steel, The Rouge Plant, Cripple Creek, etc., etc. ) to begin with; that Walker, Wisconsin Ranger, has threatened to call out the National Guard to enforce his edict; that the Right keeps threatening “2nd Amendment remedies”, etc., etc. I’ll give Mr. Capuano a pass on this one.

    <

    p>History suggests we might just get bloodied. For exercising our rights no less.

    <

    p>When the Fords apologize for Harry Bennett and his goon squad, I’ll apologize for Mr. Capuano. When the Carnegies apologize for the Pinkertons, I’ll apologize for Mr. Capuano. When Colorado apologizes for their National Guard machine gunning women and children in Ludlow, I’ll apologize for Mr. Capuano. When Republic Steel apologizes for the Memorial Day Massacre, I’ll apologize for Mr. Capuano. When our friends stop threatening 2nd amendment remedies, “bullets if ballots fail”, and stomping on women, I’ll apologize for Mr. Capuano.

    <

    p>This is a false equivalency.

    <

    p>We’ve got martyrs and monuments, and some nice songs. They’ve got money and power. And the Republican Party neatly stuffed in a Koch Bottle.

    <

    p>

  17. Does anyone want to go back and view the comments on BMG about a civil discourse and how “violent” words contributed to the violence in AZ?

    <

    p>Please do a better job trying defend Cap for his slip of the tongue. To the people trying to say it was a “Brit” usage of bloody… are you serious? ReallY?

    <

    p>To all other defending him, STOP! He screwed up and he apologized, but make believe for a minute he was a Republican… make believe he was Rush telling his audience or Newt telling Tea Partiers to get “bloody”.

    <

    p>This was wrong and as I’ve stated before, stop circling the wagons and call out bad behavior. So much for running for anything other than Congressman Cap.

    <

    p>If you don’t condemn this remark, then you have no credibility for condemning anyone else’s comments in the future. Stop protecting your people when they are wrong!

    • I’d say the majority view here is that Capuano’s remarks were a mistake.  He has agreed, and apologized.  People say stupid things in public sometimes.  The much bigger mistake is refusing to admit it.  Good for Capuano.  Palin could learn something.

      • I’m glad he did apologize but we both know how effective it is when the judge instructs the jury to ignore the last statement. He threw the red meat to his base, added fuel to the fire and then humbly apologizes? (“… could have used better words…”).

        <

        p>I don’t read the “majority view” on BMG thinking it was a mistake. And even if they had, I thought the view of people after Tucson was not to say uncivil remarks were mistakes, I thought we wanted to condemn them.

        <

        p>I agreed with many Democrats who complained that the narrative was too uncivil and made some pretty strong statements against my party and your party to stop it. I asked for civil discourse from all politicians, even BMGers here. But I always suspected this would go the same way most things go meaning some issues are wrong… but only when it involves the “other guy’s party”.

        <

        p>After the Tucson shootings, after the calls for civility and less hateful speech… Congressman Cohen spoke on the Hill and compared Republicans to Nazis. I condemned it here and sure enough we get many people on BMG defending the guy’s Nazi rhetoric.

        <

        p>Now we get another Democratic Congressman encouraging violence and many if not most on BMG either try to defend his “bloody wording” or they dismiss it as a “mistake” or that he apologized so let’s just forget it and oh by the way Republicans suck and don’t apologize so they’re worse…”

        <

        p>Let me try to emulate the Congressman… “David, you’re a son of a (&%(&^%, Mother)((&%, A-(*)hole…”

        <

        p>Now I’ll apologize for my uncivil remarks…

        <

        p>

        “I strongly believe in standing up for worker rights Conservative views and my passion for preserving those rights views may have gotten the best of me yesterday in an unscripted speech (aka words from my heart),” “I wish I had used different language (double talk) to express my passion (anger) and I regret my choice of words (and that it was recorded).”

        <

        p>All better, no blood, no foul.

          • “everything is equivalent to everything else”

            <

            p>I’m personally moving toward the concept of a difference between willingness to get bloody vs. a call to bloody others, with Capuano clearly saying the former.

              • Thanks to John D’s extensive research into ancient Republicrucian knowledge, he can now tell us that apples are the same as oranges. Listen to his wisdom and be enlightened!

          • Take the time to reread the comments above from the rest of your tribe. They are glossing over his words, they are redirecting “what he meant”, they are explaining how his words had nothing to do with violence or they are ignoring his wording completely. You are the only person from the left end of BMGville who is calling a spade a spade. You yourself have commented many times above against those defenders of “bloody” uncivil, violent invective from a MA Congressman who recently was quoted about how this terrible vitriol has to stop…

            <

            p>From the Cap…

            <

            p>

            “Many of us were afraid for a long time that something like this would happen, with the level or the tone of the discourse over the last several years,” Capuano told WGBH on Jan. 22. “It’s gotten violent and personal.”

            <

            p>

            “Everybody knows the last couple of years there’s been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse,” he said. “If nothing else good comes out of this, I’m hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things.” Jan 9, Boston Globe

Archives