Keller has been around for a long time and his approach is known to all the candidates. I caught most of the debate (1/2 radio, 1/2 TV) and thought he did fine. What’s the beef?
JimCsays
The man defines smarmy.
Alsays
and he comes across much better there than in his other performances. The WBZ radio pieces he does are unlistenable. I wonder if his son’s political slant was learned at the foot of the father? Barney used to be the mouthpiece for the state Republican party, then moved to the same job for one of the national far right organizations (Focus on Family?).
Christophersays
What was the question?
methuenprogressivesays
To paraphrase.
Check out the link, it’s a just a minute in.
hlpearysays
Partisans always rake the moderators over the coals for their biases, real or imagined. Moderators know they did well when their mailboxes overflow with complaints from both candidate’s camps.
Jon Keller is not a partisan. He is no “wannabe” anyone else. He is a fine reporter and commentator because he sees through the spin and the BS put out by ALL candidates and their handlers. He cuts to the point. That’s his job and he is good at it. He usually asks the questions that the voters are asking. No need to disparage the moderator if you don’t like the debate.
beansays
And I agree about the first question being a softball for Baker, but otherwise Keller did a decent job of getting the candidates to mix it up a bit.
JimCsays
I disagree. I think I’d appreciate Keller if he were doing his job. He’s smarmy first reporter second.
But that’s a general comment, I missed most of the debate itself.
methuenprogressivesays
First “question” of the debate, directed to Baker:
“The last couple of years of Governor Deval Patrick’s administration have been plagued by a range of managerial failures, costing lives and millions of dollars. Including oversight of compounding pharmacies, the health connector website, the roll out of medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and tragic errors at the Department of Children and families. Here’s my question: What went wrong with Executive Branch management, and how will you avoid similar embarrassments on your watch?”
Not a partisan? I do not think it means what you think it means.
JimCsays
Did that question also go to other candidates? If so I think that’s fair.
centralmassdadsays
What is unfair about that? Were these things not failures? Did they not happen? Something sure happened.
One would think that this gets hard to answer from the perspective of “We have too much regulation of compounding pharmacies, and need to let them be.” And should be a softball to the candidate from the party that is supposed to believe in the efficacy of government– unless that party has in certain circumstances obviously failed to implement effective government, but cannot admit it, and therefore cannot fix the problem.
JimCsays
I saw only a tiny bit, but I thought the staging of the five candidates was really awkward. They probably should have been sitting down.
methuenprogressivesays
WBZ’s candidate is tall.
joeltpattersonsays
Baker cut people’s health insurance, raised their premiums, and then boosted his salary from $600,000 to $1,700,000.
His answer was not good enough.
Baker lives up there with the 1% — he just doesn’t see the consequences of his actions for people who live on less than $100,000.
merrimackguysays
Patrick, Grossman, Warren, etc.
joeltpattersonsays
affect people. Sure, FDR & LBJ were rich but they did a lot to help poor people.
Charlie Baker cut ordinary people off from health insurance and then tripled his salary–as CEO of a non-profit.
The man is aloof.
toppersays
The record is that he rescued a company with a $200 million loss, preserved debt holder equity, and ensured ongoing coverage for thousands of subscribers. But I guess because he’s a Republican, those things don’t count. And BTW, if he’s aloof, what do you call Coakley? Dynamic?
bluewatchsays
Baker did not rescue that insurance company. There was special help from Attorney General Tom Reilly, who placed Harvard Pilgrim into receivership, which brought it under state supervision. Then the state issued an $80 million tax exempt bond that allowed Harvard Pilgrim to sell its property in Kenmore Square and then lease it back. Basically, Tom Reilly is the one who cleverly rescued Harvard Pilgrim, not Charlie Baker.
methuenprogressivesays
You know we’re Democrats here, don’t you?
toppersays
Why does being a Democrat preclude healthy debate/dialogue? Do you prefer trained seals here?
And if you really believe that Tom Reilly rescued Harvard Pilgrim, you should give him a call as he’s presumably owed $1.7 MM.
BTW, on the topic of “over paid,” does it bother you in the least that Coakley is drawing a full salary and yet campaigning full time courtesy of the taxpayers?
methuenprogressivesays
Thanks for providing comedy tonight!
merrimackguysays
Baker lives up there with the 1% —
To make this point.
he just doesn’t see the consequences of his actions for people who live on less than $100,000.
You can say what you want about Baker if you believe it, but the getting rich part is all over both parties. “Deval Patrick got rich parleying his government experience and then made millions as the board member of a predatory lending company.”
I don’t really care, but I’ve heard people say that as well.
JimCsays
it’s a good question, politics aside. More CEOs should be asked that.
ykozlovsays
I turned on the TV expecting to see two candidates, and was pleasantly surprised to see five. Big props to WBZ4 on this.
Falchuk’s response to the terrorism question alone deserves a vote. He also had good answers to many of the other questions, except when he would hijack the question to talk about the issues independent candidates face, which is expected and important too. I say he “won” this debate.
Coakley rebutted with the common disturbing shpiel about “information sharing” which is code for the sort of nefarious activities undertaken by the NSA and DEA under the Patriot Act.
On the rest:
Coakley didn’t answer many of the questions, and I get the impression that is usual for her. Still, I thought both she and Baker did well in talking about their work and accomplishments.
I didn’t know anything about McCormick before this debate. I came away wondering why he isn’t the Republican nominee.
Keller is a Howie Carr wannabe.
Keller has been around for a long time and his approach is known to all the candidates. I caught most of the debate (1/2 radio, 1/2 TV) and thought he did fine. What’s the beef?
The man defines smarmy.
and he comes across much better there than in his other performances. The WBZ radio pieces he does are unlistenable. I wonder if his son’s political slant was learned at the foot of the father? Barney used to be the mouthpiece for the state Republican party, then moved to the same job for one of the national far right organizations (Focus on Family?).
What was the question?
To paraphrase.
Check out the link, it’s a just a minute in.
Partisans always rake the moderators over the coals for their biases, real or imagined. Moderators know they did well when their mailboxes overflow with complaints from both candidate’s camps.
Jon Keller is not a partisan. He is no “wannabe” anyone else. He is a fine reporter and commentator because he sees through the spin and the BS put out by ALL candidates and their handlers. He cuts to the point. That’s his job and he is good at it. He usually asks the questions that the voters are asking. No need to disparage the moderator if you don’t like the debate.
And I agree about the first question being a softball for Baker, but otherwise Keller did a decent job of getting the candidates to mix it up a bit.
I disagree. I think I’d appreciate Keller if he were doing his job. He’s smarmy first reporter second.
But that’s a general comment, I missed most of the debate itself.
First “question” of the debate, directed to Baker:
“The last couple of years of Governor Deval Patrick’s administration have been plagued by a range of managerial failures, costing lives and millions of dollars. Including oversight of compounding pharmacies, the health connector website, the roll out of medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and tragic errors at the Department of Children and families. Here’s my question: What went wrong with Executive Branch management, and how will you avoid similar embarrassments on your watch?”
Not a partisan? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Did that question also go to other candidates? If so I think that’s fair.
What is unfair about that? Were these things not failures? Did they not happen? Something sure happened.
One would think that this gets hard to answer from the perspective of “We have too much regulation of compounding pharmacies, and need to let them be.” And should be a softball to the candidate from the party that is supposed to believe in the efficacy of government– unless that party has in certain circumstances obviously failed to implement effective government, but cannot admit it, and therefore cannot fix the problem.
I saw only a tiny bit, but I thought the staging of the five candidates was really awkward. They probably should have been sitting down.
WBZ’s candidate is tall.
Baker cut people’s health insurance, raised their premiums, and then boosted his salary from $600,000 to $1,700,000.
His answer was not good enough.
Baker lives up there with the 1% — he just doesn’t see the consequences of his actions for people who live on less than $100,000.
Patrick, Grossman, Warren, etc.
affect people. Sure, FDR & LBJ were rich but they did a lot to help poor people.
Charlie Baker cut ordinary people off from health insurance and then tripled his salary–as CEO of a non-profit.
The man is aloof.
The record is that he rescued a company with a $200 million loss, preserved debt holder equity, and ensured ongoing coverage for thousands of subscribers. But I guess because he’s a Republican, those things don’t count. And BTW, if he’s aloof, what do you call Coakley? Dynamic?
Baker did not rescue that insurance company. There was special help from Attorney General Tom Reilly, who placed Harvard Pilgrim into receivership, which brought it under state supervision. Then the state issued an $80 million tax exempt bond that allowed Harvard Pilgrim to sell its property in Kenmore Square and then lease it back. Basically, Tom Reilly is the one who cleverly rescued Harvard Pilgrim, not Charlie Baker.
You know we’re Democrats here, don’t you?
Why does being a Democrat preclude healthy debate/dialogue? Do you prefer trained seals here?
And if you really believe that Tom Reilly rescued Harvard Pilgrim, you should give him a call as he’s presumably owed $1.7 MM.
BTW, on the topic of “over paid,” does it bother you in the least that Coakley is drawing a full salary and yet campaigning full time courtesy of the taxpayers?
Thanks for providing comedy tonight!
To make this point.
You can say what you want about Baker if you believe it, but the getting rich part is all over both parties. “Deval Patrick got rich parleying his government experience and then made millions as the board member of a predatory lending company.”
I don’t really care, but I’ve heard people say that as well.
it’s a good question, politics aside. More CEOs should be asked that.
I turned on the TV expecting to see two candidates, and was pleasantly surprised to see five. Big props to WBZ4 on this.
They have the videos up for those who missed it:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/video-gubernatorial-debate-october-2014/ (if you run NoScript like me, you need to unblok “worldnow.com” to see the videos. -1 to WBZ4 for using tons of off-site crap on their site)
Falchuk’s response to the terrorism question alone deserves a vote. He also had good answers to many of the other questions, except when he would hijack the question to talk about the issues independent candidates face, which is expected and important too. I say he “won” this debate.
Coakley rebutted with the common disturbing shpiel about “information sharing” which is code for the sort of nefarious activities undertaken by the NSA and DEA under the Patriot Act.
On the rest:
Coakley didn’t answer many of the questions, and I get the impression that is usual for her. Still, I thought both she and Baker did well in talking about their work and accomplishments.
I didn’t know anything about McCormick before this debate. I came away wondering why he isn’t the Republican nominee.