"Capuano attacks Coakley remarks; He says she defended Patriot Act as Middlesex district attorney in 2005" by Matt Viser, Globe Staff | December 1, 2009
US Representative Michael Capuano, trying to open a new line of attack against Senate race rival Martha Coakley in the final week of the primary campaign, accused her yesterday of defending the controversial USA Patriot Act as Middlesex district attorney four years ago.
Capuano’s campaign circulated comments Coakley made in June 2005, as Congress was reauthorizing the act, at a panel discussion at Middlesex Community College. According to a Lowell Sun article headlined “Patriot Act criticized unfairly, law-enforcement officials say,’’ Coakley appeared to suggest that the threat to civil liberties was being overstated, and that those in opposition to the act were ill informed.
Coakley was quoted as saying:
“Your insurance company knows more about you than the federal government does. When people don’t understand how things work, they’re willing to say ‘can’t do it, won’t do it,’ and they tie the government’s hands.’’
And she is probably the best we got, America. What an embarrassment!
The law, enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, gave government sweeping new surveillance and regulatory powers. Capuano voted against it. Coakley and her aides said yesterday that Capuano is taking her remarks out of context and insisted that she opposes the Patriot Act. Her campaign pointed out that she gave a speech at the 2007 state Democratic convention that expressed concern that certain provisions of the act restricted civil liberties.
Yeah, and it is HERE with NO CHANCE of REPEAL, right?
In a position paper released by her campaign earlier this month, Coakley said the Patriot Act “sacrificed some of our most treasured civil liberties.’’
Coakley told reporters yesterday after a candidates’ forum at Suffolk University;
“I’ve done that my whole life, protecting people’s rights as well as keeping people safe. I think the criticism is misguided.’’
Capuano, who took out television advertisements earlier in the campaign highlighting his opposition to the Patriot Act, tried to gain further traction on the issue yesterday.
Capuano told reporters after the forum:
“I’ve been a strong opponent of the Patriot Act; I believe in defending our civil liberties, and I think that those people who feel differently, that’s fine, they’re entitled to that opinion, but they need to stand up for their record.’’
Capuano also said he will work to change provisions of the act, which some in Congress are seeking to reauthorize. Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr., who endorsed Coakley’s campaign and was a panelist with Coakley at the 2005 forum, said anything positive she said about the Patriot Act probably referred to tools that strengthened law enforcement’s ability to track money laundering and terrorism financing.
Then it isn't working very well, is it?
Leone, in an interview:
“Our primary focus was a discussion of the entirety of the act, and the benefits pro and con. The positive comments were more about the strengthening of the laws against terrorism and things like money-laundering. That’s where we were positive and affirmative, because from a law enforcement perspective that was positive. It wasn’t like Martha stood up and said she was on one side or the other. It was more of a discussion of the whole issue.’’
******************
The exchange came on a day that kicked off the final full week of campaigning before next Tuesday’s Democratic primary. The candidates, including Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca and City Year cofounder Alan Khazei, are all making a furious push for what polls suggest is a sizable bloc of undecided voters. The Republican primary, also on Dec. 8, includes two candidates, state Senator Scott P. Brown of Wrentham and businessman Jack E. Robinson of Duxbury. The special election is Jan. 19.
Although Coakley leads in all public polls, her three primary rivals are hoping to change that in two highly anticipated televised debates. The first is at 7 p.m. today on WCVB-TV and is being cosponsored by GateHouse Media New England. The second is at 7 p.m. tomorrow on New England Cable News, WGBH-TV, and WBUR-FM and is being cosponsored by the Globe.
Ooh, it is almost time. Maybe I'll watch tonight's clash.
Each candidate also spoke of the importance of young voters, saying they should be included in health care coverage, have more funding support in paying for college, and not be forced to deal with a federal deficit in future years. All four Democrats except Capuano said they support reducing the federal voting age from 18 to 17.
Yeah, you kids must feel SO BETRAYED by that man you helped elect!
“My daughter is 7 years old, and she’s been incredibly effective at convincing her classmates and all of her friends to vote for me, so I’d do 7 for this election right now,’’ Khazei said.
At a forum yesterday morning at Suffolk University, three of the four Democratic candidates said they would oppose a troop increase in Afghanistan that President Obama is expected to outline during a primetime address tonight.
Capuano, during the forum, cosponsored by The Boston Herald:
“It’s about to turn into somehow bringing democracy to Afghanistan, somehow protecting a corrupt regime, and I don’t understand why that mission is good. It wasn’t good in Iraq. It won’t be good in Afghanistan. It won’t be good in any place in this world. Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan. We stay there; we are fighting yesterday’s war. We should go where Al Qaeda is, chase them around the world, not where they were yesterday.’’
C'mon, get off the "Al-CIA-Duh" bit, Mike!
Didn't you know that Al Qaeda doesn't even exist?
That there is no Al Qaeda?Coakley and Khazei also said they opposed Obama’s proposal to add troops and said there was little the president could say tonight to convince them.
Pagliuca was the only candidate who left room to support Obama’s strategy, which is expected to call for adding as many as 30,000 troops:
“We all need to wait. The president, I really applaud him. Dick Cheney acted without facts; our president has tried to get the facts. . . . We’ll comment on the program after he lays it out. . . . I want to get our troops home as quickly as possible, but I want to get them home in a safe way.’’
NOT ONE MORE MINUTE!!!
Ah, Pags!!!
"Pagliuca’s views didn’t match chain’s actions" by Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | December 1, 2009
For nearly seven years, Stephen Pagliuca sat on Burger King’s board of directors, helping to guide the struggling firm back to profitability and generating huge dividends for his firm, Bain Capital, and its two partners in their buyout of the fast-food giant.
But the company’s drive to build profits and expand operations included a push in Washington against raising the federal minimum wage and against forcing companies to provide health insurance for their workers, two causes that Pagliuca, now a candidate in next week’s Senate Democratic primary, champions....
He learned how to be a politician awfully fast.
I guess the cutthroat business experience helped.
Burger King - which, like many competitors, does not subsidize health insurance for most of its workers and pays minimum wage - has made hundreds of millions of dollars for Bain and its two partners,
What you hiding, Pags?
Related: Time For Lunch
************************
The company says it has added roughly 24,000 jobs since Bain and its partners bought it in 2002. Three months ago, Pagliuca and his colleagues on the Burger King board were expressing concerns that Democratic initiatives in Washington were going to cut into profits. In an Aug. 27 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company warned investors that the health and wage mandates threatened Burger King’s revenues.
“Among the more important regulatory risks regarding our operations we face are the following: the impact of employer-mandated health care, minimum wage,’’ states the document, which Pagliuca, as Bain’s representative on the board, signed. The health care bill, in particular, would have a significant drag on the company’s operating results, the firm warned.
“If these bills are enacted into law, our operating results and the operating results of our franchises could be impacted significantly,’’ the document states. The conflicts between Burger King’s positions and those taken by Pagliuca as a Senate candidate highlight the difficulties that business executives often face when they seek public office. Governor Deval Patrick, running in 2006, faced questions about his role as a director of a controversial subprime mortgage lender and as Coca-Cola’s corporate counsel.
Didn't seem to stop the Globe's favorite governor.
Former governor Mitt Romney, Pagliuca’s mentor at Bain, suffered considerable political damage over his private equity investments when he ran for Senate in 1994, and questions resurfaced when he ran for governor in 2002 and for president in 2008.
--more--"
Related:
- Selecting a Senator: The Massachusetts Electorate
- Selecting a Senator: Meeting Martha
- Selecting a Senator: Mad Mike
- Selecting a Senator: Pag's Bags
- Selecting a Senator: Crazy Khazei
- Selecting a Senator: Brown Out
- Selecting a Senator: Jack Be Nimble
UPDATE:
I did watch the one-hour debate and while not taking notes I will give you my impressions and the things that stuck out (think of it as my advice to my liberal friends in-state).
Coakley: Sorry to say it, ladies, but she did not look warm at all. Too much of a cop. She had a nice, girl-next-door feel but that simply contributed to the feeling that she would be in over her head in the U.S. Senate. I must say I was disappointed to hear her defend her opposition to the marijuana decriminalization question we passed by a 65% vote. She said it was to protect kids, but one of the provisions was to have pot busts wiped from the kids' records so it doesn't keep them from going to college or getting college aid. C'mon, Marty!!! You are supposed to be better than that!
Capuano: I'm surprised to see myself type this because I think he's been a creature of Washington too long and didn't have the temperament; however, he did seem the most capable of them all. He struck me as the one guy who wouldn't be overwhelmed down there, although I laughed when he defended the mammogram controversy by saying -- and I quote -- "science changes." Yeah, apply that to the climate change crapola please, Cappy! If the guy wasn't in-deep in D.C. and so gung-ho on getting "Al-CIA-Duh" I would probably vote for him over Brown in January.
Pagliuca: Yeah, Pags looked a little unsure of himself at times and struggled to get his words out; however, despite the wealth factor the guy actually projected that he cared -- more than the front-runners above. One of the things about his wealth is that he is not beholden to the special interests and sliver, one-issue constituencies of which his opponents are beholden. Yes, he wasn't as polished as the other three, but that probably helped him. And I was impressed with him coming back on Martha after the "it's personal" remark on abortion -- after which Capuano piled on him. I wouldn't have blamed Pags if he felt persecuted. It looked like Coakley and Capuano were double-teaming in trying to knock him out.
Khazei: At times I thought he was the only adult in the room. He was the only one not involved in the elbow-tossing, which hurt him because he didn't get as much air time. Of course, nice guys finish last anyway, right? He did say some good things at times, but nothing stuck out. In the little time he did get he seemed to wonkish.
The weird thing is, if you run the names up instead of down that is who I would most like to have a beer with (in that order).
Actually, I'd rather smoke a joint with Martha; maybe she would relax a bit more.
And how is the Globe is spinning it?
In a word:
"Abortion....
The debate, carried live on WCVB-TV and co-sponsored by GateHouse Media New England, ended just minutes before President Obama addressed the nation on his plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan....
--more--"
Update: Democratic US Senate candidates spar on abortion
