Hey, there! Log in / Register
Coakley wants it, doesn't want to earn it
By Anonymous on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 9:22am
Debates are the best ways for voters to get to know candidates for office — especially when those candidates have never served in a specific office before. Especially when they are not well-known to the electorate.
So it is a major disappointment to see Attorney General Martha Coakley, the leading Democrat in all the polls heading into the Dec. 8 primary election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the passing of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, dodging all but two debates with her fellow Democratic candidates, Congressman Michael Capuano, Boston Celtics co-owner Steven Pagiluca and City Year co-founder Alan Khazei.
The only televised debate was more than three weeks ago, on Oct. 26. There was one radio debate and two or three forums, but nothing head to head. A second televised debate has now been set for Dec. 1, but for just one hour.
In a contest for a seat that is vacant for the first time in more than 45 years, that is, as Capuano puts it, "just ridiculous." Statewide, voters don't know any of them well. While both Capuano and Coakley have served in elective positions, Coakley has never been a legislator. Capuano is not well-known outside of his district...
read more
Editorial: Coakley should debate more, for voters' sake
The Eagle-Tribune
November 18, 2009
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I am a Capuano supporter
I am a Capuano supporter myself but am confused as to how you are able to get so many anti Coakley pro Capuano stuff up on the front page?
Twitter me this!
Seconded - this is not news
I'm also voting for Capuano, but Universal Hub shouldn't be running propaganda for any particular candidate on its front page.
OK
I put the post on the home page, but, yes, enough might be enough - Capuano is wonderful and Coakley should move to Montana, we get that.
Meep Twitter me this!
Meep
Twitter me this!
Montana?
Oh, if that ain't an amusing thought.
She should go back to meffuh and run for city council, or for Donato's seat. Her comments about what she would or wouldn't vote for speak volumes about a need for on-the-job-training.
an editorial from the Eagle-Tribune
The post is an editorial from the Eagle-Tribune.
To complain about it being on the "front page" is silly.
This is about Coakley's campaign for US Senate. The opinion posted on the "front page" is not mine, it's the Eagle-Tribune.
Why would there be a prohibition against criticism of a candidate for elected office when half the posts on Universal Hub are criticism of issues, people identified in news stories and other elected officials?
If these unfounded complaints control UHub policy, Uhub will officalliy become the "concern troll hub of Boston".
Stuff it
We've been around this carousel once before. You just refuse to accept that you're not on Blue Mass Group when you're here at UHub. This isn't a forum for your political spam. Every news article in every paper and every development in the Senate seat campaigning is not relevant to this website.
Not only that, but the last time, we also discussed how you're not summarizing and linking to the content of other people's COPYRIGHTED works, instead you just post half of their content and a link/citation. That opens Adam up to potential copyright complaints.
If you don't like how EVERYONE ELSE's complaints about you help Adam decide how he'd like to run his site, you're welcome to stop posting.
political spam
Is is spam in your mind because it's political or is it spam becuase there is language you can point to? Please cite the language that is spam or withdrawal your characterization of the posts. See below for a list.
One of the things Adam does when he puts an article one the front page is check for fair use. From time to time he has advised me of edits he's made to comply with fair use. I wanted you to know that so you don't worry about potential copyright complaints.
"If you don't like how EVERYONE ELSE's complaints about you help Adam decide how he'd like to run his site, you're welcome to stop posting."
Thank you for your permission to stop posting.
discouraging advocacy on uhub
I've posted five articles in 12 days:
Is that a lot? What's the limit? Which ones do you dislike and why? Which ones do you think should not be on the front page and why? Where is the "propaganda" you speak of?
I think everyone here has the privilege of posting articles within the bounds of Boston and MA related topics. Instead of advocating for fewer contributors' articles, you should be advocating for more. For one, let's hear from a Coakley supporter about why it's in the public's interest for Martha to debate less and not more, or where her campaign is holding rallies or forums.
Because there is no one posting pro Coakley material here, is that a good reason for pressuring Adam to keep my articles off the front page?
Adam, you say posting
Adam, you say posting articles "solely to diss Coakley and love up Capuano" is outside the bounds of what you want. Because there is no one posting pro Coakley material here, is that a good reason for keeping my articles off the front page?
Don't be a wanker
I come here for random, yet often poignant, news and news-like bits of info about Boston and bloggers thereof. Politics are but a MINOR aspect of what I want to read here. When I do read a posting about politics, I just want to see what the news is...and how Capuano feels about his "scrappy underdog status" isn't news.
5 posts in 12 days is one way to put it...but you could also say 4 posts in 7 days (2 of which were the weekend...so it's really 4 in 5 workdays, did you have Monday off or something?)...a LOT more concentrated of an effort and only ONE of which I'd actually possibly consider news (Pelosi endorsement of Capuano). The only type of post even close to reasonable at that kind of rate is disabled green line announcements.
And your final point about no pro-Coakley material isn't a good reason to keep you off it with pro-Capuano (anti-Coakley) material IS exactly the point! What I (and I'm going to assume most others) DON'T want here is postings from every sign-waving candidate supporter with a ton of spin on every front-page posting just because there's an election of some sort coming up once a year. Most of us don't even want to see it in the COMMENTS of an otherwise banal post dealing with the upcoming election (notice which posters' names no longer seem to be coming here to comment ever since Menino won another term).
Leave the political rah-rah crap at BlueMassGroup where I know you're a regular member. You can obviously tell the difference between UHub and BMG...so maintain that distinction and don't act like a naive wanker asking all these questions about "how am I to know how to do it right?". If you can't figure that out for yourself, then try not to post anything here. I'm absolutely positive that that's a safe default for you.
I give you permission
I give you permission to read the Uhub articles you have an interest in and ignore the other ones.
There is at least one more TV debate
Channel 5 on Dec. 1.
let freedom ring
I laugh at all the people who complain that AG is not censoring the site enough.