It’s on right now on NECN: the five major Democratic candidates for the fifth congressional district. How’s your candidate doing? If you’re undecided, what are you seeing? I’ll post the video of the whole thing when it’s available.
UPDATE: On the flip, the video, conveniently (?!) broken up into six easily-digestible pieces.
Please share widely!
Koutoujian has gravitas. He got called out on some weak positions and blew them off. He looks good, though.
Sciortino is very aggressive, especially against Brownsberger. Clearly going hardest to the left by a lot. I like that, but not for everyone.
Clark is underwhelming.
Brownsberger is on defense, big time. He comes off as smart, and very articulate. But also wrong. His last word attack on Sciortino about out of district money. Sciortino missed an opportunity to highlight his small money donors, especially compared to Brownsberger’s.
Spilka is doing a good job highlighting progressivism and experience.
with that assessment. Rather to my surprise (for no good reason, I suppose), Spilka and Koutoujian are coming off best from this forum.
Koutoujian had trouble explaining his gun legislation record, as well as explaining where he draws the line on NSA Surveillance. Also, did not have a response when Jim Braude prodded him: “What’s your strategy if a Constitutional Amendment against Citizens United fails?” But I would not rule him out for just that. Otherwise he was articulate and balanced.
Sciortino was uni dimensional, always taking care to position himself as the progressive in the race, but giving no indication of how he plans to achieve the things he is proposing. Brownsberger’s comments about much of Sciortino’s money being raised out of district stung. Also, he should have slowed down his speech – a good portion of the time he was talking too fast.
Spilka was on message about her record, all the time, saying she is a fighter, and talking of the legislation she passed. She was the one who called on Clark about the latter’s proposal for a pro-surveillance bill in the State Senate. Spilka came off much better than in the Lexington debate.
One nit: when Spilka talked about her support for public campaign finance, she did not explain why that failed and what were the pitfalls with public finance. She left the impression there that she supported public campaign finance because it was the “rigueur du jour”. Less principle and more practicality on her side.
Clark’s a good public speaker, watching the viewer straight in the eye and speaking slowly, deliberately and almost musically. But she used the same tone to express opposition to NSA surveillance as she did to support her own pro-surveillance legislation in the MA Senate. That was completely inconsistent, and her equal spaced tone compounded the inconsistency – it made it appear made up. Otherwise, Clark expressed good intentions, but like Sciortino little to back them up as a matter of a practical way to achieve these good intentions.
Brownsberger, who I support, was much more deft in this debate stating his positions where he differs from opponents – on Citizens United, Keystone, the Debt Limit. He brought in Global Warming in the Syria discussion, pointing out that US unilateral action in places like Syria will hurt prospects for international collaboration in areas where progress can only be made by common agreement. He was the only one bringing up the topic of environment in the debate. The only one talking about poverty issues and Three Strikes You’re Out legislation. Came off as very nuanced and thoughtful while at the same time just as liberal as the rest of the bunch.
Message wise, compared with the Sept 23 Lexington debate and the Sept 10 Open Debate, all candidate positions are unchanged except for Koutoujian, who for some reason now is positioning himself a bit to the right of Brownsberger, Spilka and Sciortino on govt surveillance. Could be that he is trying to speak honestly about the issue – but the difference with Brownsberger, who is much more critical of govt surveillance, is that the latter is trying to speak honestly about all the other issues as well.
But Brownsberger is not perfect either – his views on education, with individualized instruction and technology being the be all end all solving everything – that deserve more thought. But none of the others called him on it – and none even expressed a position on education, even though Spilka and Clark were School Committee members at the beginning of their career.
Comes down to who do you want:
– A true believer? It’s Sciortino.
– The most effective legislator? It’s Spilka.
– The most open and most principled? Brownsberger.
– The strongest on women rights? Clark.
– The most gravitas? Koutoujian.
for the thread (and Video!) with BMG being the place to be for all things political even when the rest of the world ain’t tuned.
Disclosure: I am here because the tension with the Sox is killing me and I am not getting paid
Watching them reminded me of the line from Broadcast News, “wouldn’t it be great if neediness made us more attractive…” They all seem to embody that feeling, especially Mimi Spilka, who noted on every topic, that it was her speciality, the thing I’m noted for, I’m an expert in that. PASS. As for Brownsberger he made a point to keep saying he is such an independent, he doesn’t give a shit what the special interests or even YOU the voters think. OK. Carl Sciortinio needed a shave, was channeling Marco Rubio at various points with a serious case of dry mouth, and came across as not quite ready. I did like Kotoujian and Katherine Clark, and already was favoring Clark anyway, so I’m pretty much decided. Thanks to NECN for the one televised debate. Good job, Jim Braude. You should do more of these.
Nicely prepared, knowledgeable, and ready to prod each candidate a bit further when they seemed a wee inconsistent. Good job indeed!
Brownsberger: “I’m liberal, but I am also the smartest candidate.”
Clark: “Everything I just said in my commercial that just aired.”
Koutoujian: “I’m experienced and progressive and polished.”
Sciortino: “I’m progressive, progressive, progressive. Also, progressive.”
Spilka: “I’m experienced, Experienced, EXPERIENCED” (all caps for the yelling).
n/t
I thought that Katherine, Carl, and my guy, Peter, did well. I thought Karen really hurt herself. She seemed distressed and upset and not at the top of her game. I felt Will was arrogant and bordering on being obnoxious. How can someone who says their biggest issue is the environment, support Fracking and the KeyStone pipeline. My guy gave the strongest closing, IMHO
He definitely had the best presence in this debate. He’s more of a B+ guy for me on the issues, compared to Carl’s A. I like him, but I just don’t know what I can expect him to really be a standout leader on. Not the environment, not civil liberties, not health care, not women’s issues compared to other candidates, not education, not transportation, not social issues, not poverty issues, not financial issues. Maybe guns is the one, and little pieces of other issues, such as mental health issues.
I thought Clark had one of the worst performances because she was completely unmemorable.
My caution and maybe it’s instinct with Big K is his allegiance to the party establishment. Even Elizabeth Warren has come out talking about predatory gambling as revenue and jobs under the tutelage of their shared political consultant/strategist/lobbyist. If he were in the lege for the gambling vote 99.9% sure he’d be all in with leadership.
Governor Patrick was just on a trade “mission” to Canada. Did anyone else catch that digital (internet) “gaming” was one of the topics?
This is just one example. And Congress will be dealing with these matters in the very near future.
I have reservations about a Sheriff and government overreach with surveillance – it’s part of the culture of law enforcement to want more power.
Anyways, just my radar.
“They’re all good. It would be hard to pick one. The little guy seemed less experienced. Hard choice….I was making dinner…..and I’m exhausted from the two hours at the eye doctors. I’ll vote for….how do you say her name?”
Sciortino gets the D for Dangerous. My goodness, he wants to stop fracking, arguable the greatest invention since the polio vaccine, bringing our region cheap natural gas. He must want everyone who heats with gas to feel like a popsicle in the winter. Anyone who wants businesses to leave and loves high heat and electric bills, he is your guy. Not to be outdone by Spilka, Carl wants free college tuition like Europe, for “qualified” students. Then he calls CPI destroying social security, and Braude informs him Obama supports this idea as well as Republicans. Good grief Carl, let your dad debate for you next time.
Spilka kinda looks like Lynne Cheney, no? That’s not a bad thing either… She kept mentioning her track record, or running track, 0% tuition. Came off as feisty, and I like that, so I give her a solid B.
Will….Will….Will. You kill me, man. 0% rating from the NRA? Dude, that’s like Scott Brown holding a press conference and saying he is splitting up with Gayle, and marrying Liz Warren or Arianna Huffington. That’s how jaw-dropping that was to me, and it hurt, very much so.
Besides that major malfunction in Will’s voting record, Mr. Brownsberger gets an A minus. His schooling of Carl on heavy reliance on his out-of-state donations was lovely. His brutal honesty on chaining social security to CPI, Keystone XL was refreshing. He wants to find a solution to this govt. shutdown, while everyone else will let those currently hurting, even suffer some more. He voted against 3 strikes laws, unlike the others. He’s willing to take on leadership of his own party and take the difficult votes. Will wont be lead by others or be a one person band like Sciortino, he will direct and move us forward.
Sheriff Peter K. I would give him a B plus. He sat in the middle, looked good. Won’t compromise on the govt. shutdown, but wants to rescind the tax on medical devices, even if that would result in a compromise deal. Makes no sense to me but whatever. Got a B rating from the NRA so he must be reasonable. Peter K. Is my strong #2 in this race.
Katherine- did she say anything memorable? Worked in the DA’s office I believe, from Melrose. Give her a C plus.
Hilarious how everybody is surprised that Brownsberger has the strongest record on gun control among the five candidates.
Not to put too fine a point on it – but how does it feel for the supporters of the other candidates to vote for someone with a B+, C or even D rating from the NRA when Brownsberger gets a clear F?
Ah, you must be thinking – these are just ratings… They don’t reflect reality very well. You won’t make your decision just because of a point on a linear scale. You will instead look at the record for your candidate, and judge their positions on the merits. And a letter grade is not a substitute for that.
Then, to be intellectually consistent, neither should you reduce Brownsberger’s position on campaign financing to Citizens United, nor his position on the environment to Keystone. Brownsberger has a point in each of these cases. He’s got a quite thoughtful position on campaign finance and the environment, and accusations of heresy on Citizens United and Keystone just serve to dilute the quality of the political debate.
On his face AND in his remarks. I was not familiar with this guy before watching the debate last night, but came away with a negative impression. He seemed to me to think he was the smartest guy in the room (which says something considering that Jim Braude always grabs that designation for himself) and above the lessers he is forced to run against. I thought it odd that he kept repeatedly going after Carl S. on the money thing…poor coaching I think…Carl is not the frontrunner…Brownsberger will be beaten by Karen, Katherine or the Sheriff…
Brownsberger seems very smart but appears to lack conviction and idealism. It sounds like he is willing to compromise on almost every issue. Because most of his positions seem so honest and thought out he’s the candidate I’ve been the most interested in so far. I think he may make the best decisions in the long run, but I fear he will be ineffective in Congress on the big issues. I also appreciate his website forum and that he mentioned patent reform both there and in the debate.
Sciortino seems to have all the idealism but seems to lack substance. I say this based both on the debate and his website. I get the feeling he’s just been thrown out there by the Democratic Party to see just how far left they can get votes. That’s fine IF he can actually stick to those principles AND get something done in Congress.
I am conflicted about Koutoujian. At times he seems to take a strong stand, but he also said the President is doing a good job — particularly on the NSA. I think he expressed both positions in the debate which I think are contradictory. Everyone here (and the NRA?) giving him B’s is telling.
I don’t remember anything I particularly liked or disliked about Clark. She seems to mostly fit the Democrat stereotype of playing to certain demographics and refusing to cut spending anywhere. Otherwise she’s a good candidate but doesn’t stand out like Brownsberger and Sciortino. Rewatching the videos now — she started strong statement on Citizens United, but then went into “I *think* I agree with Bernie Sanders on [something obvious].”
As others have said, Spilka drove home the point that she’s experienced. I get the feeling she’s the pragmatic politician, but in a very different way from Brownsberger. I need to do more research on her, but here is my start — neither Civil Liberties/Surveillance nor Campaign Finance Reform are issue headings on her website. I get from the debate and other places she holds the right positions on these issues (as all these candidates generally do) but that’s a big question of priorities. Same problem with Clark’s and Koutoujian’s sites. Also Spilka’s idea of 0% student loans sounds rather questionable.
See previous posts here.
Watched the interview, but I don’t see how it supports your claim. I have no doubt that Spilka is among the strongest of the candidates on the survellaince issue, but what makes her “the leader” in your mind, as opposed to, say, Sciortino?
Also she is not taking PAC money, but wants to pass it on to the Democratic party instead? What kind of trickery is this?
By the way I never watched NECN before this debate, but Jim Braude is pretty great in that interview. I like how he grills her on how getting things done in a Republican House is going to be so much harder than in the Democratic State House. I’d like to see the others answer the same questions (watching the other videos now).
DeLeo endorsed Koutoujian. No doubt this will help Koutoujian in certain areas, but this endorsement should give progressives pause.
Who could be the third strike? Finneran? Billy Bulger? Howie Carr?
Have you seen an actual endorsement by DeLeo? DeLeo does not usually endorse candidates.
The link is in my comment.
Yes, I think that’s why people should be weary of Koutoujian for earning such an endorsement. DeLeo is the worst kind of Massachusetts democrat.
The worst kind of democrat? I am not sure what you mean. The speaker is powerful and controlling as speakers tend to be. In this particular race it has a good deal of meaning in terms of votes because the speaker’s district includes, Winthrop and Revere, which are are in the 5th CD.
I am troubled by this guilt by association. if the Herald endorse Peter, what does that say about Peter? I take the Herald to mean what they say that he is the most qualified and has the broadest range of experience. When the speaker endorses one against 4 other people who have been or are currently in the house, what does that say about Peter? It says in the speaker’s view he is an affective legislator who will provide effective leadership for the 5th CD. If you have issues with the speaker, don’t vote for or support, but to take it as a negative if he endorses someone else??>? The friend of my enemy is my enemy? That is silly. DeLeo is leaving the legislature when he completes his term as speaker. Sorry, but I think this endorsement is coming from the heart.
DeLeo is a controlling, vindictive anti-progressive. He has held back a lot of progress in this state and likely caused ongoing damage with things like his casino project (not to mention the consistent lack of leadership and underfunding of things like infrastructure and higher-education). That’s what I mean when I say he is the worst kind of Massachusetts democrat. I also think there’s probably more to it, just like with the last few Speakers, but who knows.
Sure, it is good for Koutoujian generally, but I think it’s a bad sign if you want to support a true progressive when that person aligns himself with someone like DeLeo.
Implicit in their endorsement was that Koutoujian is not as far left on many positions as the other candidates.
Or it means that he thinks Koutoujian most closely aligns with his values, which is worrisome to me. Or that he was the most loyal to DeLeo of all the others, which is also worrisome. I know that Sciortino was punished for breaking with DeLeo on casinos. Apparently Koutoujian never made a similar decision and went against the speaker’s wishes.
I’m sorry if I can’t take the words of the Herald and DeLeo at 100% face value.
Funny, lots of lawns that had Scott Brown signs last year have Koutoujian signs this year.
Poor reflection on the Speaker for being such a dumb class-less act that he endorsed a former representative (no longer in the chamber) over the one state rep. currently serving in the chamber who is a very well liked legislator. What does that say to serving members?
If the Speaker weighed in it should have only been as a supporter of the serving state rep. DeLeo should apologize to Rep. Sciortino and resign. He”s an embarrassment.
I posted my “caution” prior to the DeEndorsement about Big K and his affinity to go along with status-quo and the power paradigm. Trust your instincts.
K + Herald + DeLeo + Rubin + Govt. Control…….they say if casinos sound too good to be true…….
Don’t cross me.
This is not surprising to me. I seem to recall that Peter was quite close with “leadership” in the days of Finneran. They tried to shore up his district and force progressives Balser and Khan to run against each other. Hell was raised locally and, because the Speaker had notified the affected parties what was in the redistricting plan before it came out, this was a key step toward his perjury conviction.
Peter avoided coming forward about that, though Khan and Balser both placed him at their meeting with Finneran. Instead he downplayed the case against Finneran, who’d come to Waltham to help his campaign a few months before lying in court about the redistricting.
Interesting what you are saying, fenway49. I did not know this.
But here is my problem – and I’m not a Koutoujian fan, as you well know: your post sounds like an anonymous attack on Peter.
More generally, there are too many anonymous posts on Blue Mass Group. That does not enhance the quality of the conversation here.
Any chance you can move the video clips “below the fold”? Their presence on the home page really slows down the load, at least for me. The good news is that the home page has been loading pretty fast lately – this is the first problem since the fixes!!
Mucho quicker now.
Her bill will be considered next week:
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2013/10/katherine-clark-s-211-bill-opening-up-huge-chapter-70-loophole/