Alan is an idiot. Martha is too safe. Capuano is a little too passionate. Steve actually comes off pretty well but a little too business-like (cut-n-dry).
Were you not watching the debate, Capuano looked like he was ready to rumble at any second. I think if Khazei made any sudden movements he would have been toast.
Pags gets confused and answers the question backwards (What would stop you from voting for a Supreme Court choice? "If they believe in Equality" when he obviously meant that is what he would WANT)
Would somebody please tell politicians to either answer the question or shut the hell up? I am so sick of the games where the debate moderator tries to word some question so that it gets properly answered while the politicians try as hard as they can to push some general, often unrelated agenda. Three things? I'll give you three things!!!! :-P
To me, Khazei seems like the brightest bulb out there -- but, as he keeps pointing out, he's no politician. On the more detailed questions, the pros, Coakley and especially Capuano, come off much better. Pagliuca comes across as a nice guy without much to offer. The moderator is the idiot.
Anyone else seriously concerned how every single one of them seems to think citizens' money is theirs for the taking?
I've never seen a group of politicians jump all over each other to prove how mind-numbingly-stupid they are. These fools aren't fit to manage a freakin' McDonalds, let alone hold public office.
No, you got everything wrong on top of being a race baiting scumbag.
Thinking a 48% tax bracket is perfectly acceptable is quite evil, government in this state doesn't work, and 10-13% of America is America hence while they are known as African-Americans MORON.
I was there, he definitely rick rolled everyone. I was gonna say something, but I was afraid the moderator would have barked at me or Capuano would jump off stage and punch me.
I think Capuano was the clear winner of this debate. It's both surprising and refreshing to see a candidate consistently *answer* the questions posed of him. Not only did Capuano clearly detail his policy positions, he was able to back them up with solid examples of the legislative action he's already taken to protect progressive interests. I picked up two themes of the debate: 1.) "I agree with Mike" (from Pag and Khazei), and 2.) "I'm not really sure what I would do, but here's a bunch of extraneous information" (from Coakley). It seems like she just went ahead and answered the questions she had prepped for and ignored the ones she was actually asked.
Is anyone surprised that at times it was the three candidates versus Coakley? She is doing everything in her power to make it seem as though she has already won. For a "sure-thing", I thought she lacked any inspiration. At least we saw some passion and intensity from Capuano.
And walked away. Amazing that this is the best we can do with all the talent in this state - I'll take a look at Scott Brown - maybe I'll be surprised. All I heard is everything should be free, no taxes on anybody except rich people and make love not war. I guess that's what gets you elected in Mass.
Coakley, but only because she is the front-runner and didn't screw up big time. Mike Capuano had the best performance. He looked the part, knows the issues, and gave the best answers (there's a reason why others were seconding the Congressman). Capuano should place strong second in the next round of polls.
John Carroll provides some morning-after analysis, explains why he felt unsettled from the start (who knew the moderator had donated to two of the candidates in the past?).
Coakley took the debate. She was articulate, strong, clear, direct, engaging and most importantly--answered the questions! She's a new kind of leader and we need her in Washington.
That is my guess at least. How else is she any different from the other 3 contenders? She is obviously a politician otherwise she would not have the support of people like the State Senate President. Barack Obama was a "new" kind of leader mainly because he was a state senator and then a Senator for a few years and nobody really expected him to win early on. Martha Coakley on the other hand has been in the system just as long as Mike Capuano. The "new" type of leader in the race is Khazei, he is the only one that has produced results while being on the outside of the system.
Experience and being a politician matters to me so I am choosing between Coakley and Capuano, I do not want a new leader. I want a proven politician who knows how to do the work. I also like a tough fighter in that seat so I go with Capuano, Coakley is a little too meek for me. That has nothing to do with her being a woman as there are many female politicians who are not meek (Olympia Snowe!)
She's most certainly new to lawmaking, and attempting to start very very high on that ladder. She may have a lengthy record as a grandstanding prosecutor, but has never even sat on even a city council or board of selectmen, let alone served as a state rep or senator or in any other legislative capacity.
What next: Is she going to fluff some student government experience? Parliamentary debate in high school?
She's also "new" in that she seems to have ZERO concept of how to conduct herself on a national stage. Her non-answers to questions where has no official position as of yet, her abysmal SCOTUS performance and the whole bizarre and pathetic Mooninite retrenchement speak to that newness.
I wouldn't call Coakely meek so much as I would call her a bully - she never misses a chance to self-promote at the expense of those least able to fight her attacks.
Moderator: Blah blah blah, how would you do it?
Answer 1: I'd do it.
Answer 2: He's right, I'd do it too.
Answer 3: While 1 and 2 have good points, I'd also do it.
Khazei: I created 200 jobs for doctors, just like my father...who is a doctor, because I love jobs thanks to my work on City Year!
Not only did the candidates often agree with each other (when they'd actually get around to straight answers) but there was no demand for addressing each others' answers. This was a questionnaire in speaking form.
because when he talks about raising taxes on those in the top tax bracket, he's talking about raising his own taxes, and those of his friends. I find statements against one's own interest particularly interesting when made in the political realm.
The problem is that he is suggesting a 13% hike on the people that own, run, and invest in most businesses. I can see a mass exodus of the top tax producing citizens happening rather quickly to every kind of tax shelter imaginable. In this economy, do you really think most business owners and investors are going to accept a double digit tax hike so that the government can keep handing out billions to a chosen few industries? Hell no, they are going to leave and take all the jobs, investment, and potential tax receipts with them. This is already happening at the state level across the country and it isn't pretty.
Comments
Mid-debate
Alan is an idiot. Martha is too safe. Capuano is a little too passionate. Steve actually comes off pretty well but a little too business-like (cut-n-dry).
Capuano seems like he's about to punch somebody
Khazei, I'm thinking.
got a link to the video
?
Were you not watching the
Were you not watching the debate, Capuano looked like he was ready to rumble at any second. I think if Khazei made any sudden movements he would have been toast.
He is ...
...From Somerville !! Mike is a great guy with a quick temper for sure. He does always seem ready for a fight.
Why is Pagliuca running?
He keeps agreeing with Capuano and Khazei.
Drinking game
Take a drink every time:
Pagliuca refers to something as "fact-based."
Khazei mentions his father was a doctor or brings up some obscure fact nobody should know, like the 1905 election in Iran.
Somebody specifically says they agree with Capuano.
Rule for Coakley?
The Moderator Yells at
The Moderator Yells at Khazei
Capuano says he has made tough choices
Coakley says the word Washington
Pags gets confused and answers the question backwards (What would stop you from voting for a Supreme Court choice? "If they believe in Equality" when he obviously meant that is what he would WANT)
Answer or shut up
Would somebody please tell politicians to either answer the question or shut the hell up? I am so sick of the games where the debate moderator tries to word some question so that it gets properly answered while the politicians try as hard as they can to push some general, often unrelated agenda. Three things? I'll give you three things!!!! :-P
another perspective
To me, Khazei seems like the brightest bulb out there -- but, as he keeps pointing out, he's no politician. On the more detailed questions, the pros, Coakley and especially Capuano, come off much better. Pagliuca comes across as a nice guy without much to offer. The moderator is the idiot.
Anyone else seriously
Anyone else seriously concerned how every single one of them seems to think citizens' money is theirs for the taking?
I've never seen a group of politicians jump all over each other to prove how mind-numbingly-stupid they are. These fools aren't fit to manage a freakin' McDonalds, let alone hold public office.
taxes are evil, government
taxes are evil, government doesn't work, and the black man is taking over real America.
Did I get em all right?
No, you got everything wrong
No, you got everything wrong on top of being a race baiting scumbag.
Thinking a 48% tax bracket is perfectly acceptable is quite evil, government in this state doesn't work, and 10-13% of America is America hence while they are known as African-Americans MORON.
Oh man!
Did Pagliuca just RickRoll us all with his closing statement???
I thought so too, don't have
I thought so too, don't have Tivo so I can't confirm. Does anyone have a transcript?
I was there, he definitely
I was there, he definitely rick rolled everyone. I was gonna say something, but I was afraid the moderator would have barked at me or Capuano would jump off stage and punch me.
My take...
I think Capuano was the clear winner of this debate. It's both surprising and refreshing to see a candidate consistently *answer* the questions posed of him. Not only did Capuano clearly detail his policy positions, he was able to back them up with solid examples of the legislative action he's already taken to protect progressive interests. I picked up two themes of the debate: 1.) "I agree with Mike" (from Pag and Khazei), and 2.) "I'm not really sure what I would do, but here's a bunch of extraneous information" (from Coakley). It seems like she just went ahead and answered the questions she had prepped for and ignored the ones she was actually asked.
3 vs coakley?
Is anyone surprised that at times it was the three candidates versus Coakley? She is doing everything in her power to make it seem as though she has already won. For a "sure-thing", I thought she lacked any inspiration. At least we saw some passion and intensity from Capuano.
I got bored
And walked away. Amazing that this is the best we can do with all the talent in this state - I'll take a look at Scott Brown - maybe I'll be surprised. All I heard is everything should be free, no taxes on anybody except rich people and make love not war. I guess that's what gets you elected in Mass.
The winner is...
Coakley, but only because she is the front-runner and didn't screw up big time. Mike Capuano had the best performance. He looked the part, knows the issues, and gave the best answers (there's a reason why others were seconding the Congressman). Capuano should place strong second in the next round of polls.
I loved Khazei's closing
I loved Khazei's closing statement: "...and we need to keep Steve here in Massachusetts to ... keep owning the Celtics?"
Unseemly debate
John Carroll provides some morning-after analysis, explains why he felt unsettled from the start (who knew the moderator had donated to two of the candidates in the past?).
Why Coakley won
Because she didn't lose.
Coakley clearly won
Coakley took the debate. She was articulate, strong, clear, direct, engaging and most importantly--answered the questions! She's a new kind of leader and we need her in Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Coakley
"She's a new kind of leader?"
In what way, exactly?
New = Woman That is my guess
New = Woman
That is my guess at least. How else is she any different from the other 3 contenders? She is obviously a politician otherwise she would not have the support of people like the State Senate President. Barack Obama was a "new" kind of leader mainly because he was a state senator and then a Senator for a few years and nobody really expected him to win early on. Martha Coakley on the other hand has been in the system just as long as Mike Capuano. The "new" type of leader in the race is Khazei, he is the only one that has produced results while being on the outside of the system.
Experience and being a politician matters to me so I am choosing between Coakley and Capuano, I do not want a new leader. I want a proven politician who knows how to do the work. I also like a tough fighter in that seat so I go with Capuano, Coakley is a little too meek for me. That has nothing to do with her being a woman as there are many female politicians who are not meek (Olympia Snowe!)
New = Inexperienced
She's most certainly new to lawmaking, and attempting to start very very high on that ladder. She may have a lengthy record as a grandstanding prosecutor, but has never even sat on even a city council or board of selectmen, let alone served as a state rep or senator or in any other legislative capacity.
What next: Is she going to fluff some student government experience? Parliamentary debate in high school?
She's also "new" in that she seems to have ZERO concept of how to conduct herself on a national stage. Her non-answers to questions where has no official position as of yet, her abysmal SCOTUS performance and the whole bizarre and pathetic Mooninite retrenchement speak to that newness.
I wouldn't call Coakely meek so much as I would call her a bully - she never misses a chance to self-promote at the expense of those least able to fight her attacks.
It has to be a debate, for someone to win it
This wasn't a debate. It was a question panel.
Moderator: Blah blah blah, how would you do it?
Answer 1: I'd do it.
Answer 2: He's right, I'd do it too.
Answer 3: While 1 and 2 have good points, I'd also do it.
Khazei: I created 200 jobs for doctors, just like my father...who is a doctor, because I love jobs thanks to my work on City Year!
Not only did the candidates often agree with each other (when they'd actually get around to straight answers) but there was no demand for addressing each others' answers. This was a questionnaire in speaking form.
When they have similar positions, how do you tell them apart?
Mike Ball gives it a shot.
Simple
One guy knows his way around DC and has full-time experience with how to get things done.
Tina Fey can see the Middle
Tina Fey can see the Middle East from Martha Coakley's sister's house, or something like that.
"Attorney General Martha Coakley was crisp and efficient, showing a command of the issues" -- Boston Globe
Attorney General Martha
So is iceberg lettuce
Pagliuca deserves some credit
because when he talks about raising taxes on those in the top tax bracket, he's talking about raising his own taxes, and those of his friends. I find statements against one's own interest particularly interesting when made in the political realm.
The problem is that he is
The problem is that he is suggesting a 13% hike on the people that own, run, and invest in most businesses. I can see a mass exodus of the top tax producing citizens happening rather quickly to every kind of tax shelter imaginable. In this economy, do you really think most business owners and investors are going to accept a double digit tax hike so that the government can keep handing out billions to a chosen few industries? Hell no, they are going to leave and take all the jobs, investment, and potential tax receipts with them. This is already happening at the state level across the country and it isn't pretty.