Inspired by this comment by afertig and those following it.
WHEREAS, in the wise words of afertig, the issue of Martha Coakley performance in the 2009-2010 special election for U.S. Senate “has been hashed and rehashed” on BMG;
WHEREAS, the aforementioned hashing and rehashings can be reviewed at any time at the following links:
http://bluemassgroup.com/2014/03/the-myth-of-martha-coakleys-mistakes/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2014/03/its-time-to-forgive-martha-coakley/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2014/02/martha-coakley-is-working-to-prove-she-deserves-second-chance/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/09/brown-2012-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-coakley-2010-updated/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/06/joan-vennichi-throws-coakleys-hat-into-the-ring/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/03/the-new-and-improved-martha-coakley/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/02/why-did-martha-coakley-lose/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/01/the-election-was-a-referendum-on-gasp-martha-coakley/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/01/yes-it-sucks-yes-you-have-to-vote-coakley/
http://bluemassgroup.com/2009/10/a-reason-not-to-vote-for-martha-coakley/
WHEREAS, for the truly demented, more discussion of the topic can be found with a simple Google search;
WHEREAS, additional rehashing of the topic has been sucking up far too much air;
WHEREAS, we have a gubernatorial race this year with five Democratic candidates from which to choose;
WHEREAS, the Republican Party has a seasoned and well-funded presumptive nominee;
WHEREAS, there are important issues facing the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts over the next four years;
WHEREAS, there are important issues, like the minimum wage legislation to cite but one, facing the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts over the next four WEEKS;
WHEREAS, there are issues of national import to be discussed;
WHEREAS, there are oodles of ballot initiatives potentially coming our way;
WHEREAS, there are thousands of delegates as yet undecided in crucial races for Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer;
WHEREAS, we also must turn some attention toward the federal midterms, with all of our representatives in the U.S. House and Senator Ed Markey up for re-election;
WHEREAS, we turned out Scott Brown at the next available opportunity and have a wonderful U.S. Senator in his the People’s seat;
WHEREAS, we love Mom and apple pie and America, and most of us love the Red Sox;
THEREFORE,
Be it resolved, on this sixth day of March, in the year of our calendar Two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth, and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its predecessors in interest the three hundred and ninety-fourth, and of Blue Mass Group the tenth:
that the undersigned, faithful and true members of the BMG community, hereby pledge to leave the topic of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 campaign for U.S. Senate behind, and that in demonstration of that commitment will post in the comments below as follows:
“I, [insert BMG name here], do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post.”
Let us, in furtherance of this commitment, mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.
I, fenway49, do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post.
“Let’s not talk about the frontrunner’s biggest problem” is a bit of a tough sell.
afertig — “hashed and rehashed” is a good line. Copyright it.
Discussion of “How would we overcome, now, the perception that Martha Coakley a loser, lazy, out of touch, etc., because of 2010?” is OK.
But let’s avoid continued discussion of whether 2010 was her fault or whether she ran a bad campaign. People who want to consider in deciding which candidate to support can be referred to the millions of words already written.
Well, thanks fenway. Did *not* expect a full formal resolution – nice one!
I think jimc is right — it’s unrealistic of us to expect people not talk about thing most people know Coakley for. I certainly participate in the topics, though never really start them (I think). So I agree to your nuance — to the extent I’ll talk about it, it’s in the context of 2014, not whether it was her fault back then.
“I, afertig, do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post. [With the caveats explained above.]”
It’s bad. It’s reaaaaaaaallly bad. But oh so good and definitely – definitely – not going anywhere, no matter what rational people swear or don’t swear they’ll do.
But we can hope!
So the analogy holds.
My friends, I believe that together we can strive toward a more productive tomorrow!
Petr tried, but didn’t do a great job. Someone else want to attempt this? Its the same set of questions I’ve asked every candidate. I’d love for Martha, Doug, or a supporter of hers to give this a shot and give me detailed answers beyond ‘because she fights for people’ and ‘she was a great AG’. Tell me the what and the how so we can answer the why.
What does Martha Coakley do better than the opponents?
What specific issues is Martha Coakley going to prioritize and in what order?
How is Martha Coakley going to win the general?
How is Martha Coakley going to get those priorities passed by the legislature we have (not the one we want to have but the one we actually have)?
This very morning (about six hours ago), you said:
You’ve already changed your mind? I doubt it. Instead, your point isn’t “tell me more about what I should vote for Coakley”, but rather that you think these questions don’t have good answers.
That being the case, it seems like a tremendous waste of time to try to answer your questions in a detailed way. Instead I’ll give you (and others who might truly be on the fence) the highlights:
What does Martha Coakley do better than the opponents?
Win statewide elections and Democratic primary campaigns.
What specific issues is Martha Coakley going to prioritize and in what order?
These issues (in this order): http://www.marthacoakley.com/issues
How is Martha Coakley going to win the general?
By getting more votes than the Republican nominee.
How is Martha Coakley going to get those priorities passed by the legislature we have (not the one we want to have but the one we actually have)?
She probably won’t. And neither will any Governor.
Correct! I have yet to see anyone from the Coakley camp give good answers to these questions. I have seen great answers from Dan Wolf himself, which is why I would’ve supported him in a heartbeat, great concise answers from Berwick, why he is #1, and at least some good answers from Grossman. I could even write up answers based on what Avellone and Kayyem have posted. Couldn’t do that for Martha.
Why? Wasn’t a waste of Dan’s time, or Don’s, or Steve’s supporters. Funny, when you treat the voters as intelligent human beings capable of understanding policy they actually respond positively to your candidacy! I thought Avellone was another Pagliuca clone until I’ve seen not one, but two incredibly thoughtful posts about substance abuse in the state. I can’t support him until I hear about his other stances, but at least it’s something. Kayyem had a great piece connecting climate change to emergency management and economic growth. We are the base-we want red meat not popcorn.
Oh the humanity!
Not the Red Sox part (GO TIGERS!). But otherwise, sure!
Romney was right-the trees are the right height!
…Curt Schilling is a well-documented “Yankees fan”:)
The funny thing is that, before Theo Epstein went to Arizona for Thanksgiving to sell him on Boston, he’d said he would only accept a trade to the Yankees. So she was just off by six years or so.
…Martha Coakley’s incompetence is the reason we have Elizabeth Warren,
we, the undersigned, agree to forgive. But not to forget.
That’s about as far as I’m willing to go.
I’m just not going to waste any more time debating what, in fact, happened
I, somervilletom, do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post.
I, MethuenProgressive, do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked by smear campaigns, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post.
And, can we stop with the ‘sexist’ chit already?
This may be a good way to prevent this kind of stuff from happening in the future. We always have fights during the primaries.
I, Mark L. Bail, do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked by smear campaigns, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post.
Or anything that just sucks up time and print to no good end. We seem fairly troll-free at this time, but if that changes, I’d be up for a “DFTT” pledge.
I, JimC, do solemnly swear that I shall refrain from initiating discussion of Martha Coakley’s 2009-2010 U.S. Senate campaign, and that, if provoked, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of disagreement and a link to this post.
Full disclosure, I wasn’t planning to bring it up anyway, so I feel a bit phony taking the pledge, but there it is.
Also I’m taking the original pledge, not the compromised second draft with the “smear campaigns” bit.