You might have seen Charlie Baker’s latest web spot on this very page – I did, on the Google ad that appears below the first front-page post. It sets forth Charlie Baker’s three big ideas to make Massachusetts “great.” Hold onto your hats, because you won’t believe the bold, creative thinking that is coming out of Baker HQ these days. Ready? Here they are:
1. Lower Taxes
2. Reduce Wasteful Spending
3. Reform Welfare
Wow! What an exciting new program for … oh wait. That’s what the Mass. GOP has been running on for, oh, the last 25 years. Yes, Charlie 2014 comes across as a lot nicer and friendlier than Charlie 2010. But he doesn’t seem to have anything new or different to say.
You have to marvel at the Mass. GOP. Their numbers get worse and worse, but they never change their tune. They’re nothing if not consistent.
I’d love to hear him say we need to cut regulations in light of the recent compound pharmacy disaster. No doubt he will. Only question is: Do we have a candidate who can handle his crap?
You could go farther. Kansas has recently lowered the state budget and state tax revenue drastically. The results have been disastrous.
It would surprise me in the utmost if Coakley were to run against Kansas, but goodness, the Republicans have really offered us up a scapegoat if only our politicians would accept it and make a nice curry of it.
Short of that happening, “everyone knows” raising taxes will kill the economy, and the few people saying otherwise aren’t getting the message across. Instead, they run from the issue. Grossman, to his credit, talked a bunch about the need to convince citizens and voters of the need for more state revenue during the recent debate.
I think Baker left Don Berwick out of the ad for two reasons. First, the whole “politics as usual” thing doesn’t apply to Berwick, since he is an outsider candidate like Deval Patrick or Elizabeth Warren. Second, I propose that Baker fears Berwick more than Coakley and Grossman. Baker knows that Berwick would destroy him in debates, especially in Baker’s supposed area of expertise, healthcare.
Polling two weeks from the primary has nothing to do with it.
Berwick repeatedly emphasized how Mass. government has been run by politicians who don’t know how to manage things. (Grossman glances on this theme too. It distinguishes both from Coakley.)
What the primary seems to make clear is that getting elected requires that one to be a skilled politician. I’ve always thought these skill sets are distinct and this has certainly been a natural experiment confirming it.
For a Baker/Coakley or Baker/Grossman debate. Nothing new here. Since all three are in favor of casinos and all three are against significant changes to health care reform, they are all limited to the basic boilerplate. Baker goes the route of “cut taxes, eliminate waste, cut welfare” appealing to the blue collar labor types who think that their taxes are going to help those “lazy (insert color here) people”. Then he sprinkles the tone with inferences to improprieties and the appearance of improprieties that line up with being an “insider” on Beacon Hill. Finally, he touts his success with healthcare as an experienced businessman. This guy is an amalgamation of Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.
Coakley/Grossman counter with “Jobs and the Economy”.
Yes, if I am Baker, the guy I do not want to face is Don Berwick.
I love that Baker’s ad is showing up for me on BMG through Adroll.
They must be smart enough to figure out I have an Illinois IP address.
4. Privatize public schools.
Here’s a little factoid I LOVE to use with my “those damn teachers unions are the reason our schools fail” friends.
Of all the 20+ nations that beat the USA in test scores in math, reading, science and the rest, all are staffed by union teachers. Better yet, Finland is in the top of most rankings and guess what nation has the strongest teacher’s union? If you guessed “Finland”, go to the head of the class.
So, if unions are the problem here, why are they not the problem anywhere else on the planet?
I don’t get why this ad targets Mr. Grossman and Ms. Coakley and exhorts viewers to vote for Mr. Baker in the September 9 primary election.
What’s the point?
A voter who wants to vote for Charlie Baker will have to pull a Republican ballot. He or she won’t see Mr. Grossman or Ms. Coakley on that ballot. If he or she pulls a Democratic ballot hoping to vote against the two opponents mentioned, his or her only other choice is Don Berwick.
Maybe this is a dress rehearsal?
Maybe too he wants to encourage people to vote for Grossman so Coakley has a smaller mandate?
Charlie Baker says that the old ways of taxing more and spending more are not working. Good old Charlie is counting on his voters not reading the news.
Massachusetts’ economy expanded by 11 percent, to $424.4 billion from mid-2009 to 2013. We beat every other state except Vermont that grew at 12%.
During which Republicans have held the corner office more often than not.
I hope it’s obvious that I am not a fan, but clearly this agenda speaks to many voters.
The rest of the country is going down the tubes, the middle class is getting squeezed, our aloof and distant President prefers golfing and hobnobbing on the Vineyard to actually leading and being President, DCF is a mess, the Market Basket situation is reminding everyone how dysfunctional our state still is at helping the Middle Class, rents are skyrocketing creating a housing crisis for Millenials who want to stay in this state, MBTA is still falling apart (used it three weeks ago and it makes the CTA look like the Incheon bullet train), inner city schools are failing, and there is a wide chasm between the wealthy and poor areas of our state.
And we have no general election candidates addressing this with significant solutions, outside of bucket challenges and buffer zones, this has not been a particularly memorable primary. I am worried that when people feel government is broken, they vote to break it even more by electing Republicans. Tom Frank has demonstrated this. And I think we will be blindsided by a Baker victory in November, just as IL seems poised to elect a Republican Governor, and America will make McConnell majority leader. I hope I am wrong, and will work my best to fight.
…take a swipe at the President’s vacationing, which we all know is never a true vacation? Please save that nonsense for the GOP!
Bill would’ve flown on the first plan to Ferguson, shook the hands of every cop and then delivered a powerful sermon at a black church calming everything down. Because he loved people. Gov. Patrick is also a black leader not running for re-election but he is willing to say what the President isn’t. That open season on young black men has got to stop .
Obama just offers empty platitudes, like he always does, and Foley gets his head cut off and he basically says “now watch this drive”.
Moore was right to ding Bush on that, I think I am right to ding Obama. His hands off approach hasn’t worked for six years and it won’t work for the last two.
A sermon would have been better than sending the attorney general, calling for a separate autopsy, and having the AG speak personally about what this means to him.
Obama’s just like Bush! We should vote for Hillary, that will solve everything.
Damn I really need this vacation …
Your increasing use of downrating suggests you’ve lost a bit of the niceness I’ve come to expect of you.
I’m cranky and overtired (I might dispute “increasing use,” but I won’t.)
Have a good week.
.
Those responses are good. But, IKe, Kennedy, and Johnson sent federal troops over less. Bill was a compromised centrist in a lot of ways, but he never failed to articulate a tone of measures anger and a lush for reconciliation and healing. Gov. Patrick struck that tone, Obama can’t or won’t. My black co workers and friends feel let down a little, but also recognize that as a black man he is restricted to what he could say compared to a white president like Clinton. But, then we have Patrick as a neat counter factual. My point is, whether it’s fair criticism or not, he is absent and aloof whether in Washington or on the fairways.
…that Obama is scared to death of being seen as “the Black President”. My view is that haters already hate him so he doesn’t have much too lose.
Bill Weld won in 1990 against the worst Democratic candidate for Governor in modern times (John Silber), with the help of many Democrats who voted for the guy who wasn’t Silber. Weld won again in 1994 against a sacrificial lamb. And Paul Cellucci, by then effectively the incumbent after Weld bailed, won in 1998 against a lackluster campaign by Scott Harshbarger who (like so many others) failed to make the AG-to-Governor transition. Romney/O’Brien was closer to a fair fight, but even that race seemed determined more by O’Brien’s unfortunate commentary on minors and abortion than a statewide devotion to tax cuts. Though I suppose the last point is evidence for the proposition that a single debate can dramatically change the tenor of a race!
A couple of days ago.
Granted, she has lackluster opponents, but I will have to see a spark or fight in her after she does the nomination up before I’ll stop being nervous. And, at this point I’d be saying this if Grossman was the nominee too.
She has had enough support mostly locked up from the getgo to avoid having to campaign hard at all. Instead of engaging in debates, they can just avoid fights. This was exactly how it felt with the 2010 special election with the race largely decided early and an inability of other candidates to get much attention or make any attacks stick (or the media and public to care much).
I expect that she won’t repeat the idiotic mistakes of the 2010 special general, but she’ll have to engage and then we’ll see how strong she is.
the Republican she leads by 8 points? Or the Democratic candidate she leads by 21? Or the other Democratic candidate she leads by 35%? Both of whom trail Baker in the polling for the final.
Coakley is running the primary race she needs to run (and yes it is remarkably similar to the US Senate primary) and win. And while doubleman’s snarky comment is just that – snarky -it’s also correct. 2014 candidate Coakley learned from 2010 candidate Coakley (and her campaign’s) mis-steps. She is a far better campaigner today.
In the literal sense that this is a campaign lacking in luster. It is lacking in enthusiasm, it is lacking in a clear vision and a clear goal. Charley had the best objective critique of Coakley as a candidate-she always sounds like she is running for the job she has, rather than the job she wants.
I am resigning myself to her nomination, and would prefer her to Baker, but I want to have more of a reason than resignation and the lesser of two evils to vote for someone. And Baker honestly seems more eager, more engaged, and more present in this campaign than the last one, possibly because he is just running as who he is and not who his base wants him to be. That tension could still doom him, and who he genuinely is, is still someone to the right of our electorate (and his Republican predecessors). But if both campaigns run at their present course I expect a very close election.
is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t know too many more enthusiastic volunteers than Kate and she’s been on doors and in the Coakley HQ for months.
I’ve been at union meetings, public events and one-ones where AG Coakley has been given a warm and enthusiastic response over and over again. Her favorabliity ratings remain among the highest in the state and in this race.
I will grant you that AG Coakley isn’t a shouter at the podium, isn’t going to jump into the Charles River (a’la Bill Weld) on a whim, and most likely won’t have as colorful a barb as Barney Frank however – she’s enthusiastic as hell about running for Governor.
I take a sharp mind, core values and hard work in a candidate. I’m damn enthusiastic about her candidacy and campaign.
A single foolish incident in autumn swings these elections often. Silber snarling at Natalie Jacobsen. O’Brien’s tattoo.
What is notable is that you list lackluster Democratic nominees for 4/6 of the last elections. That is a poor record indeed. I see nothing so far to convince me that this year is not a return to that well-established pattern, which favors a competent Republican campaign, if such a thing can exist in the real world.
What is different now, from those 4 elections is that I am not sure that there can be a competent Republican campaign in Massachusetts anymore. In my view, that is the Romney legacy– the death of the Massachusetts Republican party that loved Weld because he held the above-listed positions, AND because he spit in Jesse Helms’ eye at the same time. The local GOP lost that sensibility when they had to go national for Mitt in the primaries.
Senator Brown was their best hope to recapture that legacy, but the sensibility was lost, and it flopped. Can you imagine Weld or Paul Argeo’s campaign “tomahawk chopping”?
Baker is a candidate that would have CRUSHED Coakley pre-Romney. I don’t think he will be able to do that this year, even if he ekes out a win.
Very smart.
The degree to which the contest was ‘fair’ relies on the extent to which the Rmoney version — moderate, easy-going, engaged— presented to the electorate in 2002 was true Rmoney…. or even if there is a ‘true’ Rmoney. In a matchup judged by the citizens the sociopath who lies with ease and effectiveness both about himself and his opponent will always have an advantage. Not the electorates fault for being duped (it’s the journalists fault for not calling a lie a lie) but there it is.
I think Charlie Baker would cast himself in the mold of ‘moderate, easy-going, engaged’ and, having seen the effect this persona has on the electorate — both with respect to 2002 Mitt Rmoney and 2010 Scott Brown — will run on that. I don’t, however, think that Charlie is a sociopath like Rmoney or a hard-hitting dumb-ass like Brown, so it’s unlikely to be a lie. Possibly his biggest strength is that wholesale removal of the meta-layer of dog-whistles, underhandedness, deflections and the sheer mechanics of keeping a story straight … The last straight up race in the CommonWealth, that I can recall, that was free of this meta layer was the Kerry v Weld Senate matchup of 1996: Kerry ran as Kerry and Weld ran as Weld and the voters decided, more or less, straight up. (I don’t count Patrick v Baker in 2010 because Tim Cahill added a great deal of deceit and ledgerdemaine…) Consequently, I think that 1996 was the last ‘fair’ race we’ve seen in the CommonWealth.
I think that if Charlie Baker runs as Charlie Baker — whoever that is — and the nominee for the Democratic party runs as who they are (which is the default position for Democrats… yes, even for John Silber): that is to say that Coakley runs as Coakley or Berwick runs as Berwick it will be an interesting, and fair, race.
Your argument I take it is that these events and dynamics were decisive, not overall party ideology.
To which I say, of course. (And that many of these dynamics seem to be repeating themselves. The wind is very much at Baker’s back this year.)
But the fact remains that “what the Mass. GOP has been running on for, oh, the last 25 years” has not stopped them from winning more of those years than not.
Charlie’s plan of reducing taxes and spending will only add up for local municipalities to make up the shortfalls. Expect if he is elected many towns will have to seek overrides to fund important projects. Mr. Baker relies on a myth that there are untold millions of wasted funds. Some yes, but not enough to carry through with his tenuous support of schools, roads(he’s against indexing of the gasoline tax), creating jobs, and improving the affordability of health care. With Charlie in place you can bet on higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher co-payments. His proposals amount to a cost shift to the public resulting in less jingle in people’s pockets.
and
At one time, Baker’s minions were pushing the notion that Baker was the smartest guy to work in state government.
“the old way” as if they really offer something new and the tax-cutting mania had not been going on for 35 or more years already with bad results. I don’t recall liberal Democrats running in the 70s on “The old ways of no union protection and no safety net just isn’t working. We need to try this new thing called liberalism.”
The presumptive Democratic Party nominee, and the party machinery that supports her (especially in the legislature), is making no claims to counterbalance the “tax-cutting mania” that works so well for the GOP.
So long as our public transportation continues to collapse, the impacts of increasing income and wealth concentration continue to worsen, and the FACT (no longer just appearance) of widespread government corruption continues to spread, the GOP mantra will continue to be persuasive.
The government of this state is VERY broken. The Democrats have controlled that government for a long time now. The Democrats show ZERO inclination to even acknowledge, never mind repair, the obviously broken aspects of this “DEMOCRAT” government (that’s the way the GOP will frame it).
Rightly or wrongly, most people are unwilling to continue to spend money on something that’s broken — especially if the contemplated spending will do nothing to stop the fragments from continuing to fly about the room.
Whether “old” or “new”, I think Governor Baker’s argument is likely to be very persuasive this November.
The health care reform that the rest of the nation followed was written into law with a Republican governor. Now we have a chance to go one step further with a Democrat as governor and lead the nation again. Sadly, the two leaders in the polls in either party are against healthcare as a human right and more in tuned with health care as a profit center for shareholders.
Wealth disparity is tearing our nation and parts of the world apart. Once again, we have an opportunity to stem the tide of programs, institutions, and policy that adds to disparity and exploits the poor. Sadly, the two leaders in the polls in either party are enthusiastically in favor of expanding opportunities for the exploitation of the poor and widening the wealth divide through the approval and special “old boys network” support for casinos.
If all we are interested in is “jobs and the economy”, what makes us different from Republicans when those jobs and that economy fail to provide health care as a human right and fail to address the real problems of increased wealth disparity?
I am hard-pressed to believe Coakley & Grossman oppose single payer. One could easily think it is unachievable now or unworkable at the state level.
That is not the same as opposition. So I would like to see a source — or a retraction.
So what would you call it? Passive support? Possible support depending on the polling data? Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman have not put forth any support of health care as a human right.
According to her web site, Martha Coakley wants to make it more affordable. In other words, a market based product that one has to purchase, like carpeting for your home. Maybe Martha Coakley supports the sort of healthcare that the rest of the developed world (and Don Berwick and I) see as a right, but sees it as “unworkable” even though Vermont is on its way to that and even though moving to “Obamacare” was workable here in one state prior to it being implemented nationwide. I am not excited with a governor who just wants to take the easy, politically neutral and maybe I will get re-elected route. (I do give her respect for her stand on mental illness that that is one ray of hope I see in her position on health care).
It’s difficult for me to tell you what Steve Grossman’s position is. Steve Grossman lists six “Issues” on his web site. Health care does not even make the list. So maybe he is for support of Medicare for all but only had room for six potions. Maybe his web designer can give us more insight.
You wrote “oppose”. Substantiate or retract.
During the last debate at Stonehill College, Don Berwick said that he was “the only candidate who supports single payer health care., Medicare for all.” Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman were in attendance and had the opportunity to correct that statement if in fact it was not correct. They did not.
You can watch the debate here. It’s at 1:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ptpHgDN-Eo
You are against progressive taxation because you’ve never said you were for it.
I watched that debate too. The questions were being asked of the candidates by a panel of journalists and not by Dr. Berwick.
*
The practical politics right now are that Coakley is going to win the primary and win it by a large margin. Dr. Berwick will come in a distant third. So if we’re going to keep a Republican out of the corner office, Republicans out of cabinet seats, and Republicans out of running policy for the state, we’re going to have to rally around Coakley.
Having reckless, intellectually dishonest accusations about Ms. Coakley demotivate the Democratic base which is going to be needed for GOTV in November.
If you are going to make accusations like this, I’d advise you to do your homework.
From the Progressive Mass questionnaire, Coakley says “not at this time” with regard to single payer.
So, she opposes working toward the policy now, but thinks it might be possible down the road. Using the word “opposition” to describe that position is not out of line. She doesn’t rule our single payer as a bad policy, but she certainly does not “support” it.
As progressives, I think we need to be serious about what Coakley supports and what her vision for MA is.
“Better than Charlie Baker” is hardly something to get excited about. “She’s going to win the primary, so start backing her” is also not going to help.
Let me be clear at the outset: I now think that Berwick is an inept politician and the debate drove that home to me, but on every policy position I prefer him. The debate made me less certain about voting for him rather than more. The first year of the Patrick Administration demonstrated to a lot of us that political skill was really important, and Patrick’s back then needed work.
*
You have indeed quoted one part of the questionnaire: a part that proves johntmay wrong and recklessly so about Grossman. One’s support of a better candidate is no ticket to the sort of factual recklessness we see too often on the right. We can’t let our side turn into Michelle Bachmann.
In Coakley’s case, the questionnaire turns “not at this time” into “opposes”. However, Coakley also wrote:
This has also been the Governor’s focus. It is not an unreasonable position that healthcare costs could be lowered now with some help from the ACA and an activist governor. Nor is it unreasonable to think our legislature might never get to the other side of single-payer any day soon. Certainly, focusing on both improving and abolishing the current system is politically impossible.
So I’m certainly not convinced this counts as “opposition”.
Now, it’s certainly fair to say that Berwick alone among the candidates thinks single payer is achievable in the short term — say within four years. It’s also fair to say that he thinks significant cost reductions can be attained through that change and that is somewhat of an answer to Coakley’s concerns. You might say they share the goals of lowering healthcare costs but assess the near-term risks differently.
To jump to calling Coakley’s position opposition is simply not useful. For example, unlike Republicans who really do oppose single payer, Coakley has made no statement or speech saying single payer is a terrible idea that will never work. That is what opposition means.
I’m confused by that statement. To me, the implication is that a politically skilled candidate is one that does not propose any significant policy directions. If that’s true, then, sure, Coakley is the most poltically adept politician of the group. Patrick might have learned much on the job, but he had a progressive vision and moved the ball significantly in that direction. Beginning from a place that represents no kind of progressive vision is not something I can support, and not at all something that should be expected to push progressive goals.
Coakley is the most likely to win, the most experienced, and may move the ball slightly in the right direction, but that’s about it. I’ll take my chances with the bold progressive who has proved an ability to get improbable things done for decades, including on the much more dysfunctional federal level, and whose positions I support on pretty much every issue.
The part of the questionnaire I quoted demonstrates that Coakley will not push for single payer. That is a lack of support for single payer. In the same way that a candidate saying “I’m for equality” but saying “Not yet” on equal marriage in 2001 would not indicate a real support for equality. It’s a question of leadership.
In terms of the rest of her quote, there is nothing I can trust about it. It’s a generic statement about health care totally belied by her willingness to approve a Partners deal that bakes in the outrageous health care cost disparities of certain players in MA with an admittedly (by the AG’s office) outsized market power in the industry. Moreover, nothing in it indicates a current or future support for single payer.
It’s not just the near-term risks. When it comes to a world-respected expert on health care efficiency versus the Attorney General who produced a report about the market power of Partners and then approved a deal solidifying that market power, I’ll go with the world-respected expert’s views on the health care matters at hand. They don’t share anywhere close to the same vision except that Coakley would like to see lower costs and high quality with no direction for how to get there and Berwick has specific plans for how to achieve those goals. Big difference.
This response is like most of what Coakley’s campaign has presented. Generic policies on things that should happen, but no real direction on how to get there.
She has said that she does not support it now. She has not made any statements that it is a good medium- or long-term goal that she supports. Therefore, I think it is very safe to say that she does not support the policy. And, if she doesn’t support it in any meaningful whatsoever, then what should we call her position on the issue? Using the term “opposition” doesn’t seem unreasonable.
If Berwick proves incapable of pushing single payer through the legislature — and that does demand political skills — then we would have missed out on the interim reforms that could have saved a significant amount of money.
There’s also a keen difference, say, between marriage equality and single payer. Implementing the former is pretty simple; implementing the latter isn’t. The former is a right; the latter is a new accounting system.
So “not now” truly does mean different things in those two cases.
I could be happy with “let’s first win all the reforms we can within the current system” and then “let’s move to single payer.” Why? Those interim reforms to could help some real people. You could also imagine someone for single payer would want to keep the distraction of that option hidden away until the most important reforms have been wrung out of the current system.
In any case, it doesn’t seem to productive to say that Coakley “opposes” single payer.
*
Patrick’s early political missteps nearly derailed his agenda. We heard about those damn curtains for years.
I think that’s overly simplistic and not what’s at stake. Berwick is a realist. I don’t think it’s an “all or nothing” agenda. It’s a “this is the goal we should be moving toward” agenda that would include supporting policies that move toward that goal. He’s not the type that will pack up if he get can’t his ideal package. But, he is the type who will push for certain goals despite political pressure in opposition. Like a real leader.
Given a clear opportunity on this issue, Coakley chose to solidify Partners’ market power and out of control costs. That does not seem consistent with “‘let’s first win all the reforms we can within the current system’ and then ‘let’s move to single payer.'” That’s a problem.
She has not shown support in any meaningful way, so what should we say? “She sort of supports it but only down the road”?
And what is being productive? Getting in line behind the likely nominee without criticizing her positions in advance of the primary?
Even if she wins the nomination (which seems all but certain), she should still be pushed on issues. If she is not advocating for progressive goals, progressives need to stand up and push for them. I think the calls to not criticize her from the left because it may demotivate voters or her hurt chances are inappropriate and harmful.
If we do that, we’ll get exactly what we deserve.
Berwick is not going to be the Democratic nominee. His polling is not going to rise up from 10% to 40% in three weeks. His recent debate performance was not stellar — and, at this point, it’s only debates and ads that remain. And so, I just don’t care about the differences between Coakley and Berwick. Those differences don’t matter anymore. Sure I’m voting for Berwick, but Coakley’s going to win the nomination.
So what do you suggest we say with respect to Ms. Coakley who looks as if she’ll be the nominee?
Is it really useful to overstate her reluctance to embrace single payer? Based on surmise and conjecture, do we really have to say she opposes single payer? Could we maybe imagine the world of Wednesday, September 10 and the outcome we will want on Tuesday, November 4?
Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman had a publicly attended event to dispute the statement by Don Berwick that he is the only candidate in favor of single payer. Both did not challenge the remark. One would assume that means they agree. If not then they both are willing to hear someone say something in error about them at an important event and allow it to pass without comment. I find that rather odd, don’t you? These are not accusations, they are facts. I do not need to do homework. All I need is to listen to what was actually said (and not said) during the debate. I suggest you do the same.
If either is in support of single payer, please, have them contact me and I will reconsider my position. I was not always a supporter of Don Berwick and in fact, I went to the convention with the full intent to vote for a different candidate. The primary is still on the horizon. Here is your chance to win another voter for your candidate. Are you game? Have you really done your homework on this? No canvass needed, no phone banking. I am offering you one easy voter.
If we are to keep a Republican out of the corner office, we need to run a candidate who is different than that Republican. Trying to “out Charlie Baker” Charlie Baker is not the strategy I would use. Elizabeth Warren was a clear, bold, distinctive difference. Elizabeth Warren did not run as “I am in agreement with Scott Brown on key issues, but I am a Democrat!” There are areas in which I support Martha Coakley but the overlap with Baker on health care, casinos and the “good old boy” network deals is something that I have hard time dismissing if I am to spend my weekends canvassing and lending my name to. Again, her stand on mental health is enough, just barely but enough, to give me the horsepower I need to canvass and all that. I am sure you know how it feels. And so that I am not accused of slighting Steve Grossman, his support of unions and his family business that worked with unions give me enough to campaign for him as well if he is the winner in September.
In closing, let me tell you, if you have not figured it out, that health care is my #1 concern. Without health, jobs, casinos, global warming, and all the rest do not even register. Been there, done that and had many friends and relatives who are in it or past it. I am attending a “fund raiser” for a person who was injured a while back and the family cannot pay the bills. A fund raiser? We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. A person needs medical help and medical help is available, but instead of giving it to him, we are putting this “service” on the “market” and if he cannot pay, oh well, have a bake sale? All means all, not just those who can “afford” medical care. No matter who wins the primary, I will support the Democratic candidate. That said, it’s hard to be enthusiastic about a candidate on only the grounds that she or he is not a Republican.
First off, you made a positive accusation for which you have only the vaguest proof. Shame.
Second, Dr. Berwick introduced single payer in answer to a number of questions that were not about single-payer. The other two candidates were polite enough to stay on topic and not interrupt as many times as a certain other candidate did. Moreover, positions of not now or not practical or not just at the state level or not until Vermont tries it do not constitute opposition.
Finally, your last paragraph is simply hyperbolic. The choice in the Democratic primary is not for or against health.
Martha Coakley is far too accomplished as a politician today to actually “oppose” single payer. Just as she does not “oppose” tax increases on the wealthy. Just as she does not support corruption.
Like all too many good Democrats, especially here in MA, she instead promotes the party line and promotes herself as a party leader, while carefully ensuring that she doesn’t actually DO or COMMIT to anything that might bring about the contemplated change.
Of course she “supports” single payer — but only at the right time, of course. Of course she “supports” increased taxes on the wealth, but only in partnership with the legislature (who’s Speaker has made a career of “no new taxes”). Of course she opposes corruption — but couldn’t find a way to do anything about the Probation Department scandal, the police and fire disability scandals, the apparently widespread and illegal fund-raising of Michael McLaughlin, the thousands of fraudulent drug reports published by Annie Dookhan, and so on.
It’s political rope-a-dope — promote the party line, and then do absolutely nothing to actually advance it.
And a reason for voters to mistrust.
somervilletom’s more nuanced position. That’s not what you said.
During the debate, when Don Berwick said he was “the only candidate who supports single payer health care., Medicare for all.” both Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman had the opportunity to announce some nuanced support for single payer, universal, Medicare for all but they remained silent.
…and have also heard him call health care a right going back to his days as DNC chair.
“Looking down the road a bit farther, yes, I do believe that a public option, or single payer system, could be part of the ultimate solution and I will be watching Vermont very closely. I have publicly put single payer on the table as a viable option to consider as governor.”
So he is in favor of it at some time, but not now, and we need to follow Vermont. Why not now? Did Romney “wait for Vermont” before he took the bold step to lead our nation with health care reform?
….you have this knack for making a maybe or a not yet sound like outright opposition, which is clearly not the case. Wait and see isn’t that unreasonable a response either politically or practically.
The unsubstantiated claim reads
You have provided nothing to back this up.