To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Comment From Bean in the BurbsBean: Capuano comes across as an arrogant jerk
Capuano comes across as an arrogant jerk
If you watched the debate and formed an opinion, click reply and tell me if you agree with this sentiment. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
The important thing, at the end of the day, is that we put a strong democrat in the senate to bear the torch of civil rights and liberties
Your own statements - unsubstantiated character attacks on the opponent running against your preferred candidate - put a lie to your words. That you would respect yourself and others enough to be honest would be a big improvement.
"I kept thinking he was trying to sell me a used car" "They have too much grease on them if you know what I mean." (0.00 / 8) "he's slick, slippery" "didn't mean to offend anyone ... you gotta watch out for those used car dealers" "so slick, he fooled you into thinking he wasn't slick at all" "there's a difference between those traits and being slick, especially to the point of deception (as in the case of a dishonest, used car-salesman)." "call it slick call it greasy, maybe its just plain "deceptive""
"They have too much grease on them if you know what I mean." (0.00 / 8)
"he's slick, slippery"
"didn't mean to offend anyone ... you gotta watch out for those used car dealers"
"so slick, he fooled you into thinking he wasn't slick at all"
"there's a difference between those traits and being slick, especially to the point of deception (as in the case of a dishonest, used car-salesman)."
"call it slick call it greasy, maybe its just plain "deceptive""
I think we get it.
Also, handing out 3's to people who disagree with you (and why shouldn't they, you offer nothing beyond mud-slinging characterization) is another offense that demonstrates your lack of respect for other people who post at BMG. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
Don't try to speak for BMG - everyone here is capable of speaking for themselves and responding or rating a newcomer's comments as each of us sees fit. Last I checked, the ROTR did not appoint NeilSagan the arbiter of offenses here. "Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow
Regarding giving people gratuitous 3's when they disagree, I didn't make it up, I learned it hear. It's all opinion and it's all mine. You got a problem with that?
I'd like to ask you a question becuase you seem like a reasonable person. What do you make of t.eloise's in the thread quoted above? After all, that is the subject of my comment. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
I like this blog because it has succeeded in being a place where there is meaningful discussion. There are many other blogs for those who just want to engage in empty verbal battles. "Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow
sorry couldn't resist
And poor Pags thinks that human beings decide on the facts................and Mike makes value based decisions informed by the facts.
1. He's desperate for time, so he'll talk over and through anyone. 2. He has a message that he will deliver after each question, regardless of which question actually asked. 3. His father was a doctor. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
"Failure to plan is planning to fail." Proverb
You can keep your brand of "parity" "my dear."
It is totally ridiculous to suggest that anyone that finds your repetitive comments tiresome is against "sexual equality".
Mike's making it clear that he's the candidate with the actual legislative and policy experience to prepare him for this seat. Even the other candidates are deferring to his expertise.
He chaired the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, and helped to create the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), increasing government transparency and accountability by giving Americans the power to review ethics issues.
He has championed progressive environmental policies, co-sponsoring the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and supporting legislation imposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
He's supported college students and their families by voting to simplify the financial aid application process and increasing the Federal Pell Grant to $5500.
He protected tenants' rights by ensuring they are given 90 days notice before forced to vacate a foreclosed home.
Moreover, he has a proven record of standing up for progressive interests, despite what's in vogue in Congress. Mike voted against the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and FISA (Bush's invasive wiretapping policies).
I don't think there are any questions about whether or not Mike has the experience needed to serve as our Senator. He's proven he is a strong leader with a solid record and a commitment to advancing progressive policies.
I don't know the details of Capuano's record on legislation. I have no idea how dirty he gets his hands when it comes to writing bills. It just seems silly to me to count the number of bills, divide by years served, and decide that's a useful metric.
Clear. Answer.
I hope the campaign operatives would be a little more subtle. Only the cod is sacred.
I just hope she keeps posting at such a furious rate on December 9th and on... ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
...if you'll direct your attention to some of my previous posts, i've been berated plenty for my opinion, and my opinion alone.
but why the hell would i be up all night blogging if i weren't absolutely passionate about a candidate? what's so wrong with that? The democratic process is not privy to the elite, the democratic process is not just for a special club of people who have been blogging longer than others.
What's wrong with being a woman and saying openly i support Martha Coakley? Because she is the most viable female candidate MA has ever had, and I support her not only because she would be the first female in all 221 years of the Commonwealth's history of statehood, but i support her because i believe heart and soul she is the right PERSON for the job. I think her leadership is different than the other candidates and when people like you say things like that, it's disappoiting- that wasn't a party line, that was Coakley's stance on Afghanistan. It was clear, and it was correct, what's your problem with that?
Personally, I thought beachmom, the poster Sabutai references, made a nice contribution to BMG, and I hope she keeps posting. BMG: Reality-based commentary.
I'm not the politeness police, and nobody appointed me, so take my words with a grain of salt. I'd rather you refine your words a bit and become a respected BMG poster than flame out, so I hope you'll consider the advice.
Not trying to beat you up today. I'm off from work and have lots of time to think and read today.
P.S. can we get a spell check function. My spell checker (Bean) is in another state tonight.
So thanks for taking on the challenge! "Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow
Bottom line, my candidate Mike did not disappoint me by losing his temper at the stupid format and succeeding in tolerating it all with grace.
I thought Capuano did well too. He is well spoken and made a good case that experience gained as a Congressmen is hikgly applicable and irreplaceable as a qualification for the US Senate. He explained that, as a Senator, you work to make sure the debate does not advance to the point where you are left with two bad choices and that relationships and influence are key in accomplishing this feat.
Pags projects well and speaks well but is clearly green and lost points for agreeing with the candidate who spoke directly before him, typically Cap.
Kaz is determined and serious but projected porly, perhaps dourly, in tv tonight. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
The Senate desperately needs his ability to articulate progressive positions with passion and directness.
They may both cast liberal votes as senator, but I am sure only about Capuano. I think "moderate" Senators are for states such as Maine and Arkansas. The Bay State should be sending a liberal. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
I frankly don't know what Coakley is. She's a good Democrat, that was clear tonight. She's on "our side". But so is Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln -- it's the Schumers and Rockefellers who get us where we need to be. But I haven't seen or hear anything to know if she's a moderate or a liberal. Given the choice between the maybe liberal or the definite liberal, I'll take #2. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
I think the argument that as a Congressman he is the only one who could learn to work in the Senate is bogus. There is a huge differnce in how things work in the house versus the senate. She is one of the brightest people I have met.
By arguing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Coakley prioritized the state's interest in efficient prosecutions (and resource allocation of highly utilized crime labs) over the sixth amendment rights of the accused.
Amber Paw is right to say it was an unsettled question. At the same time, it's clear how Coakley wanted it settled. In my opinion Coakley's policy is dangerously underinformed if she thinks crime labs produce infallible results that should not be subject to cross-examination. That she is willing to make this trade off, as a matter of law, is decidedly not liberal in the sense of preserving an individual's Constitutional rights.
I will say that her positions as a candidate for US Senate are as liberal as Capuano's, but I could not say that all of her positions are. My conclusion is that she is more conservative than she'd have voters believe. That said, if she wins the primary, she wins my vote in January. At the same time, saying she's a better candidate than Scott Brown is not saying much. She's my #2 choice. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
Additionally, since opposition to the death penalty sems to be legitimate in your eyes only if it's based on moral grounds, I'm wondering if you can demonstrate how all of these undergrads not only opposed the death penalty, but did it for the "right" reasons.
Less than eight actually but no I don't think it disqualifies her. I think it tells you about how liberal she is.
IMO She is zealously law and order and her core values on law and order strike directly at her views on individual rights. The former not the latter, is her priority... not right or wrong just so.
My belief is based on observations about her positions on a. death penalty b. mooninite case c. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts sixth amendment case d. opposing Gerald's commutation while not opposing Cheryl's e. overcharging Louis Woodward f. convicting a man with uncorroborated "repressed memory" testimony based on a scientific theory of unsettled scientific merit.
Coakley changed her opinion on the death penalty about the same time Gov Ryan of IL suspended executions. What I cannot reconcile about Coakley's change of heart in her death penalty position in 2002, is that she attributes the change to a recognition of the real possibility of wrongful convictions and (therefore state-sponsored wrongful deaths.) It's a good reason but she cannot have been unaware of the possibility of wrongful convictions for 12 years while attending law school and working as a prosecutor and DA. So why so late into a career in the law? It's not like she was running a business and never thought about these things.
Many liberals make the following arguments against the death penalty, Coakley doesn't: Coakley doesn't argue that because the death penalty is not a deterrent, and because executions are more expensive than a life sentence, and becuase it's immoral for the state to play god with lives, and because if you believe the aforementioned, an execution is nothing more than a revenge killing emotionally satisfting for the victmis family, that under those circumstnaces, the death penalty is mothinh more than cruel and unusual punishment.
Coakley says instead, it might be a mistake.
This distinction is probably immaterial to most people and I understand that. To me, its an unsolved mystery that shines some light on how she thinks through her policy positions. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
I also think the "law & order" tale you weave is a legitimate narrative for AG Coakley -- not the only one to be sure, but certainly a plausible one.
At the same time, if the person has the stance I have, I don't always care if it's from financial, religious, ethical, theoretical, personal, or other experiences -- the vote is aye or nay, no asterisks or purity tests.
Also, who do you think won the debate? Vote: http://www.bluemassgroup.com/d...
2 Coakley - Started slow, but gained her footing as the event went on.
3 Khazei - A little hyper, and constantly reminding the audience about his parents, but had command of his facts, and comfortable in the debate.
4 Pagliuca - Out of his depth, plus he donated to Romney and Bush, that eliminates him from consideration.
Capuano is my man. I can't support Coakley unless she is the primary winner.
Peter Meade: If I never see another debate moderated by him, it will be too soon. His attempts to control speakers that went on too long were whiny at best, and his efforts to draw out answers from candidates trying to skirt them were amateurish. As a debate moderator, he makes a good Kennedy Greenway organization head.
That said, only two truly substantive, distinctive remarks were made by the candidates:
1. Alan Khazei's comments on heath care and how, despite an historic Democratic majority and mandate for change, the public option still is being railroaded by lobbysists, PACs and entrenched political interests. He was the only one who expressed anything close to appropriate outrage at this unacceptable, outrageous fact.
2. Mike Capuano's description of getting legislation passed and horse-trading which demonstrated experience-based understanding of how ideas are crafted into real-world policy in Washington DC. He distinguished himself among the candidates (panelists as Pag's called them) as someone who understands how one gets things done as a Senator in addition to what he'd like to do as a Senator.
Every other comment struck me as candidates getting their sea-legs, introducing themselves, and making sure they didn't make any gaffes.
The format was fatally flawed and the mediator fatally graceless.
I was especially disappointed in Coakley's underwhelming presence. She is a more thoughtful and substantive politician, but seems already to be "playing to not lose."
Cap often distracted from important distinctions he stated (visiting troops in Afghanistan, voting against PATRIOT Act and Iraq invasion, etc.) by using a testy/adversarial tone.
Khazei seemed nervous a couple of times, speaking longer than he had to after making his point.
Pags was consistently languid, but forgettable.
On the radio, Khazei jumped out (as he needed to do) as the most interesting and with the strongest experience. Coakley seemed steady but subdued, Capuano seemed strong and tough (sometimes too much on both of them).
Watching on TV, my wife thought Capuano came off as almost as much of a joke as Pags, perhaps a difference of radio/TV or of perception in general, while Coakley came across as the strongest, again different medium and different person. She did paraphrase Khazei's closing argument as potential reason to not support Coakley in the primary.
Look forward to 5 more if the candidates take up Alan's challenge :)
I just spoke with the CSpan main office, they tell me that they did tape last night's debate, and will publish it on www.cspan.org after they receive and prep the tape (sometime today). I'll post a link when I find it. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
Coakley appeared Senatorial..(Is that a word?) I could see her going toe to toe with folks across the aisle...and having success in building consensus and compromise.
I want our Senator to be relevant nationally. I want them to have the cache to impact the conversation and move the ball forward for democratic values.
I'm starting to think that Coakley is best positioned to be that Senator.
