Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason mass was liberal was cuz of the kennedy's now their gone I think it will swing away from liberal policies. I left Boston a year ago for Dallas the grass is greener
Seeming as how you are Dallas now, you might not read the local Boston papers. Joseph Kennedy III is running for Congress. So I wouldn't declare the Kennedy's gone just yet.
I imagine Massachusetts will get more and more Democratic as the Republican party continues to shift further right.
What I find mindless is the anger that permeates the divided and hateful republican party.
And as we all know the Democrats are saints and have not pushed their party further and further to the left while pushing the moderates to the side. If I were alive in the JFK era I might have been a Democrat myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finocchio
Martha Coakley is the best there is. I have personal association with her and she is an intelligent and caring representative of the people of this Commonwealth.
Not so according to contacts I have in law enforcement. As Middlesex DA she was rendered useless by most of the chiefs and those working for her. Only goal was to climb the political meatpole. Now as AG she has failed at the primary responsibilities of her job. Big Dig contractors (and murderers) have gone unprosecuted. It was the Feds who had to come in and take charge of the DiMasi and other public corruption investigations. And it is still "not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts". What a disgrace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finocchio
Brown (with his Playgirl narcissistic background and small fist to cover his small privates) is a deer in the headlights. Never a more vacuous individual have I watched. Small wonder Warren's going to wipe him out at the polls.
Another reason Brown beat Coakley. People got tired of her negative, factless smear campaigning. If Warren is smart she will focus on real issues and stop trying to hide who she really is.
As a Democrat, it's fairly easy to see why Brown beat Coakley and it has little to do with policies. Coakley is not likeable (unless, I guess, you have a personal connection to her). She appears to be smug, uptight and cold. She almost has the appearance of someone who thinks she's better than everyone. To be clear before I get ripped apart... I'm not saying that ANY of those things are true. I'm just telling you how she appears to those of us who don't know her.
As much as we like to pretend that we're above that, appearance is one of the most important factors with any candidate. That was obvious in the Brown/Coakley election.
Brown, on the other hand, did his best to appeal to everyone. I found his driving around in his pickup trying to appear as an "everyman" to be as tacky as can be, but it worked. Moreover, he did a great job of appealing to the unions (who aren't necessarily still pleased with him) which won him a lot of votes. Finally, he's a more moderate Republican which makes him tolerable to moderate Democrats. I voted for Brown and I mostly vote left. I wasn't in love with Brown, but I wasn't a fan of the alternative. That's likely to be different this time around.
My bf and I consider ourselves Independents and will be voting again for Scott Brown in the fall. We like that he is a moderate Republican. We were not impressed with Coakley, and we don't like Elizabeth Warren at all.
As to the hate in the Republican party, we don't see that in Scott Brown. Otherwise, I think that the Democratic party has gone too socialistic with them wanting to give so much to the poor and the illegal immigrants. I suppose I see the Democrats as having too much "love" for the needy.
Seeming as how you are Dallas now, you might not read the local Boston papers. Joseph Kennedy III is running for Congress. So I wouldn't declare the Kennedy's gone just yet.
I imagine Massachusetts will get more and more Democratic as the Republican party continues to shift further right.
Amen sistah! Massachusetts, first in everything progressive. This ain't Minnesota folks.
As a Democrat, it's fairly easy to see why Brown beat Coakley and it has little to do with policies. Coakley is not likeable (unless, I guess, you have a personal connection to her). She appears to be smug, uptight and cold. She almost has the appearance of someone who thinks she's better than everyone. To be clear before I get ripped apart... I'm not saying that ANY of those things are true. I'm just telling you how she appears to those of us who don't know her.
In my view, she's the antithesis to your observation of how others see Martha Coakley. I have good reason to say it. She championed me and I'll be forever grateful.
The sad fact of it is, I suspect lrfox, that most are threatened by what they interpret as "smug, uptight and cold". I'm not quite sure where you get that "she almost has the appearance of someone who thinks she's better than everyone". If it were a male Attorney General behaving precisely as Coakley does not a person on this board would feel threatened by her. I like her pluck and her manner much in that same way I like Obama for he lets the smallness of his critics roll right off his back all the while keeping his Statesman-like dignity. Both Obama and Coakley are QUALITY people.
If the day has come where most people find dignified behavior threatening, I say we've come to a very bad place in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
As much as we like to pretend that we're above that, appearance is one of the most important factors with any candidate. That was obvious in the Brown/Coakley election.
Agreed. You're spot on. But it's a disgusting way to put people with power in office.
Quote:
Brown, on the other hand, did his best to appeal to everyone.
His "appeal" was lost on me. No content.
Quote:
I found his driving around in his pickup trying to appear as an "everyman" to be as tacky as can be, but it worked.
Certainly did.
Quote:
Moreover, he did a great job of appealing to the unions (who aren't necessarily still pleased with him) which won him a lot of votes. Finally, he's a more moderate Republican which makes him tolerable to moderate Democrats. I voted for Brown and I mostly vote left. I wasn't in love with Brown, but I wasn't a fan of the alternative. That's likely to be different this time around.
Do you mean you were taken in by the very things (above) for which you say he was erroneously elected??
The man's not all that bad looking. And I'm a gay male, and I'd not bed him he's so bloody dense looks or no looks.
In my view, she's the antithesis to your observation of how others see Martha Coakley. I have good reason to say it. She championed me and I'll be forever grateful.
That's really awesome that you have such a strong and personal connection to Coakley, but most can't say the same about her. And maybe having that personal connection is making you only see her with rose-coloured glasses. But your positive opinion of her is very subjective, not factually objective.
Quote:
The man's not all that bad looking. And I'm a gay male, and I'd not bed him he's so bloody dense looks or no looks.
Yes, Scott Brown and the rest of his family are very attractive looking. Society in general prefers their leaders to be good looking and charismatic. If you want to bash the people for voting in Brown based mostly on his handsomeness, then also consider that JFK and Obama won their elections on their looks also. Had Obama been a twin to Rev. Jackson and also not had such a good speech writing team, he would never have become President. However, Obama being attractive and with an attractive family, and a well spoken man caught the fancy of Oprah and all who voted for him.
Otherwise, stop with trying to put down Scott Brown over his IQ level. Do you actually have access to his IQ scores? I'd say that if he was able to graduate *** laude from Tufts and then graduate from Boston College Law School, then Brown is not the dummy you keep saying he is.
Or do you think that only those who go to Harvard Law School are smart people?
Anyway, bash Scott Brown all you want, but I find that message board discussions and arguments NEVER change anyone's opinion on the subject. So don't try to use City Data as a means for free Elizabeth Warren stumping.
That's really awesome that you have such a strong and personal connection to Coakley, but most can't say the same about her. And maybe having that personal connection is making you only see her with rose-coloured glasses. But your positive opinion of her is very subjective, not factually objective.
Yes, Scott Brown and the rest of his family are very attractive looking. Society in general prefers their leaders to be good looking and charismatic. If you want to bash the people for voting in Brown based mostly on his handsomeness, then also consider that JFK and Obama won their elections on their looks also. Had Obama been a twin to Rev. Jackson and also not had such a good speech writing team, he would never have become President. However, Obama being attractive and with an attractive family, and a well spoken man caught the fancy of Oprah and all who voted for him.
Otherwise, stop with trying to put down Scott Brown over his IQ level. Do you actually have access to his IQ scores? I'd say that if he was able to graduate *** laude from Tufts and then graduate from Boston College Law School, then Brown is not the dummy you keep saying he is.
Or do you think that only those who go to Harvard Law School are smart people?
Anyway, bash Scott Brown all you want, but I find that message board discussions and arguments NEVER change anyone's opinion on the subject. So don't try to use City Data as a means for free Elizabeth Warren stumping.
I've always liked Martha. Don't know why but I do. I think she's been a good AG.
Miu, never say never! This discussion board has gotten me to reconsider voting for Brown again. I don't like what I'm hearing from people with more political savvy than I.
That's really awesome that you have such a strong and personal connection to Coakley, but most can't say the same about her. And maybe having that personal connection is making you only see her with rose-coloured glasses. But your positive opinion of her is very subjective, not factually objective.
It's really quite extraordinary. I find I'm able to look at my personal experience with Martha Coakley yet still, objectively, address her record and still come out feeling the same way about her. She's invested in the same human rights issues as I am. There are very few politicians, irrespective of their location and status, about whom I can make that same observation.
Quote:
Otherwise, stop with trying to put down Scott Brown over his IQ level. Do you actually have access to his IQ scores?
First off, I'll not instruct you how to evaluate a candidate and you show me the same courtesy. That way neither of us will be offended by the tone of the other's post. I think that's fair. And I'd enjoy interacting with you on the board. However I will not brook disrespect in my personal life. I won't here either.
Quote:
I'd say that if he was able to graduate *** laude from Tufts and then graduate from Boston College Law School, then Brown is not the dummy you keep saying he is.
You mistake the ability (in my view) to study and learn rotely what is required to get a degree or two. Many people can do that. It does not change my opinion of his intelligence quotient.
Quote:
Or do you think that only those who go to Harvard Law School are smart people?
Oh my. The Harvard comment certainly says a great deal more about you than it does the poster known as "Finocchio". And it's extremely telling.
What an odd thing to say. Do you see me as "Mr. Pompous" as tamzinluv once called me? Is that the source of your oddly telling comment? No, I didn't attend Harvard. I did my undergraduate work here in the States and furthered my degree status at Christ Church Oxford. Both experiences have served me well to date in this life.
Quote:
Anyway, bash Scott Brown all you want, but I find that message board discussions and arguments NEVER change anyone's opinion on the subject.
I've already stated the very same thing in a post that was wiped out by CaseyB. I concur with your "change anyone's opinion" point. So why try? I'm not here to fight.
Quote:
So don't try to use City Data as a means for free Elizabeth Warren stumping.
Again, I'd ask that you not instruct how or why I use this forum. But for the record, I can assure you I'm not here to stump for Elizabeth Warren. She's entirely capable of doing that for herself without mentioning one word. All one needs do is observe her with the detachment of real political enlightenment. I do my best, though I'm not always successful, to do just that.
anecdotal aside:
As a genealogist by avocation, I will admit to wondering if her first husband (James Warren) was a descendant of the Pilgrim Richard Warren (c.1580 - 1629)
Last edited by Finocchio; 02-24-2012 at 06:28 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. If I were alive in the JFK era I might have been a Democrat myself.
This discussion board has gotten me to reconsider voting for Brown again. I don't like what I'm hearing from people with more political savvy than I.
