Richard Tesie

God help us! Please let the Reps come up with another credible candidate! Soon! Oh, and here's to the next Governor of Massachusetts.

I believe it's Tea "Party", Steven. Please keep personal fetishes to yourself.
Markey needs to get a real job, he's been sucking on the Commonwealth's teet for almost 40 years. We don't need another angry Lib that can't compromise. When will people learn?

I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT:
YES, I AM A ED MARKEY SUPPORTER. I am also working on his campaign. However, to Steven Cavaretta and others, NOTHING IS SEWN UP NOR SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED!! That is what allowed Scott Brown to be elected in the first place. This will be a hard fought for primary effort and I am confident that Ed Markey will be the nominee, but it will require the dedicated work of my my fellow Ed Markey supporters to make this happen!!!!

How sweet it is! First one bully in the form of Mitt Romney is gone for good, and now a second in the form of Scott 'You're not an Indian' Brown!

A pretty darned good day for Massachusetts.

Lets hope he's the next governor of Massachusetts! still can't believe he lost to that feminist Warren.....

Where does Mr. Markey really live? How come none of his so called neighbors have NEVER seen him in Malden? Talk to his Letter Carrier. Bet he/she has something very interesting to say. Not a good way to start off a statewide campaign when your next door neighbors don't know who you are. Let the lying and misleading begin!

It looks as though this should be a cakewalk for Eddie.

Steven, some people might get offended by what you were talking about doing with the GOP. As I said, you are getting close.

Not "might" Charlie, were/are, so thanks.

Please run for governor now Scott. Please.

Mr. Brown, I hope you find a nice, lucrative job in the private sector, and never show your face in public office again.

We need more than a barn coat, an old truck and a pretty face to Move Massachusetts Ahead. Where were the ideas of Scott Brown that were not based on someone losing in order for someone else to get ahead?

I met with congressman Markey about 2 yrs ago at an open meeting at City Hall. I went to seek help for my mentally disabled adult nephew. I was loking fro help with housing and social security and had been given the run aroun by gov't agencies for 3 yrs. My nephew tested 1 point above the score to be condidered mentally impaired by the dept of mental health. In our meeting Congressman Markey was so very condensending, he told me I was fortunate that this was not the 50's where as my nephew may have been at the Fernald school and fed radioactive oatmeal. And then sang the praises of the Kennedy Family. Oh, he also assured me I was going straight to heaven for caring for my nephew.Then he asked me, "What is it you want me to do?"

This state and country does not need another liberal. All he has ever done is get the daylight saving time changed, which is a disaster in the fall. NO WAY should he get elected Senator.

Markey's record is more consistent with the views of most MA residents, most of whom want to support quality of life programs like social security and medicare. Sorry Sue, the "liberals" voted against two wars and the five tax cuts that supported them and bankrupted the country. Pretty obvious that you're on the opposite side of history and most of the rest of the country. Would like to see next senator tackle carried interest loophole in tax code that allows hedge fund managers to pay 15% while the rest of us pay more.

I'm bummed, but I hope he will run for govenor.

And I would also like to tell Janet Woo that she looked like a fool stalking him and chasing him to his car after his statement the other day.

MJ, as I explained I am not taking it down but I do think some people might find it offensive. I figure if people may not want to see it in public, they may find talking/writing about it also distasteful.
Also, I wanted to give a warning. I don't like just deleting people's comments without first letting them know if they are getting close to the line.

MJ- talk about playing the victim?! Steven's miscreant attempt at alliteration IS offensive -and it should not be only to Repubs. Look up the def on Urban dictionary if you're unfamiliar, though I doubt you are. Poor Steven & MJ. Boo hoo. Put up (unoffensively) or shut up.

And as for your blatantly hypocritical charge of DA's use of feminism-, clearly you can't expect the rest of use to ignore your solid blue biases. Def. 1.the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Can you please tell me wich part of that the Dems and Warren in particular did NOT employ? The so-called "war on women", "women's rights, "fearing for her granddaughters"?! Puh-lease! It's not that feminism is for women that's ibjectionable, it's the extreme nature of some proponents that is frustrating. Neither is it mysogynistic to call it out. Do I have to be Jewish or German/Austrian to acknowledge the Holocost?! Spare us the party-line Woah is me-isms!

Come on MJ - seriously? Playing the victim again? Need Charlie to referee or can't you argue your own points? Typical Liberal milk-toast response - can't take the facts so you criticize a few typos. Interested in why you’ve as of yet chosen not to respond to the core of my rebuttal? The truth hurts doesn’t it? Let’s face it, the Dems in this state hang on to anything and anyone that represents the path of least resistance. How much cash can they get for my cause; how many relatives can they get hack jobs for? One party rule stinks and it leads to festering cronyism, nepotism and schlock politics. Rome burns and you worry about someone shouting “Feminist”?! That’s rich!

MJ, the moderating need only be one-sided, because that's where the prompting is needed - on the one side that feels the need to use pejorative, vulgar sexual acts to connote political beliefs, but we digress. Shame your conviction in supporting your viewpoint isn’t as robust as you pursuit for others to follow the rules. But that’s typical of Liberals, quit when there’s real work to be done and resort to name calling or character assassination. Silly me

The virtue of this spirited exchange would in many places outside the US make both sides of the discussion avail for repercussions, prison. or even death. Many people come to this nation for the daily peace & everyday banal existence that many of us who are born here never appreciate or worse consider it to normal in the rest of the world. Well.. IT IS NOT!

There must be a Republican whose last name is Kennedy who would be willing to run. S/he would not need to campaign, have any pertinent qualifications, know anything about the issues, and would very likely be elected.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Aron -- if you do not understand my comment, you have not been paying enough attention to Massachusetts elections.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Aron
I think what Charlie means, if I may Charlie, is that MA is in love with the Kennedy name and will fall over itself to vote for one, regardless of qualifications. People like to participate in "historical" elections so they can tell their grand kids something interesting years later. (obamas election being in this catagory) Voting for a Kennedy also fits that discription. People feel a level of comfort voting for a Kennedy because since we LOVED Jack and Teddy so much, and Camalot so intrigued us, that their off spring should be just as competent, or at least carry the same panache...therefore they feel like they are voting for a known entity. Even if a Kennedy were Republican, Charlie is saying, he/she would get voted in anyway, simply because of the name recognition and peoples lemming like infatuation with celebrity.

No MJ, no one is saying that someone should NOT vote for someone just because of their name. If a Kennedy came along that could stay sober long enough to articulate a winning message of common sense, responsibility and good governance, I'd be happy to vote for them. The problem is, most democrats feel that successful people have become successful as a result of dishonesty, corruption and being mean to little old ladies in wheel chairs and as such evil miscreants, they ought to have their success taken from them and given to people that did nothing to earn it except to merely exist.
So, basically, it's not the name "Kennedy" that bothers me, it's the perpetual (D) behind his name that causes me to pause.

Vineyard, what I should have written earlier tonight was 'I'm sorry.'

Wow, Mike. That's some pretty heavy-handed generalizing. I may be a SocDem, but I'm not about to begrudge a man his success, so long as it was honestly earned. You don't see me calling for the collectivization of property.

But then you see folks like the Kochs, the Coors, the Waltons (after Sam the Great, of course) and others. And you see the way they treat their workers. And the environment. And the country in general.

And it makes you wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- some of these people do not really deserve all of the money and power they possess. (Granted, I'm not about to rob them. I just want them to pay their fair share. Spread the wealth, if you will ;-)

Aron Levy, do you work for the government or a non-profit?

Aron
Yes, that IS generalizing. But painting with a broad brush is acceptable in conversation because we wouldn't be able to have a political conversation AT ALL if we didn't. Yes, I know very fine people who are democrats. I'll even include my wife in that category. But we generalize so we can talk about "you guys belive this, and we believe that" because it is generally true. Democrats believe that the government is better at determining where money is spent. Republicans believe spending is best determined by the individual. Dems believe big government is better, Repubs...smaller government is better. Can we find a dem that DOESN'T believe those things? Yes. Can we find a repub that doesn't believe those things? Of course. Do ALL Dems believe the same things? Of course not. But GENERALLY speaking, there is a trend to their views, a trend that manifests itself during, say, an election. If there wasn't a generality to both sides views, there wouldnt be any political parties! So I stand by my generalization. Dems...generally...think that rich persons have too much money, and that they need to pay higher taxes so that money can be redistributed the way that government thinks best, to people who didnt earn it. I think that is a fair depiction of the left. You may object to the way I phrase it, but I speak the truth. I don't presume to postulate on their motives, but my discription is factual. Do you disagree?

MJ
That, I am sorry to say is a stupid argument. Scandal is a personal failure, experienced by individuals failing for individual reasons, and has nothing to do with their political beliefs. Clinton didn't get hummers in the oval office because he was a democrat. He got them cause he is a womanizer and has serious self esteem issues. The mere fact that you actually have a list and ascribe virtue to one party over another because scandal has darkened their lives, is sick. And the fact you think that MEANS something is...frankly quite pathetic. I could trot out similar list. Hey, here is an idea, genius, let's go to all the prisons and ask what political affiliation those bozos ascribe to. Wanna bet the dem side of the ledger would out weigh the republican side by a wide margin? How about all the welfare recipients in this country,pretty much a dem landslide there I'm guessing. Know the difference between me and you? I don't ascribe any meaning to that list. These people are individuals and their personal failings have NOTHING to do with their political persuasion. One way or the other. You on the other hand, seem to ferret out some meaning to it.
That, MJ, was probably one of the most ignorant and brainless things I've seen on these pages. Unless you have the intellect of a potato clock, think about the stupid things you are trying to conjure here, and get back to me when you've taken a bath, gone to school, grown up and developed some common sense. Moron.

Aron
My contention to the misaligned MJ was that because he comes up with a list of people who've been involved in scandals, and he lists the republicans on that huge list that somehow that implies that republicans are what, more nefarious? Less virtuous? More dishonest? What a stupid thing to put forth in a forum of what I presumed to be made up of intelligent people. I could come up with a very similar list. So could you. I would NEVER make the stupid assertion that these people's politics are somehow connected to their bad choices in their lives. Greed has no political bend,stupidity favors no philosophy or the other. And yes, the overwhelming race in poverty is white. But what is their political persuasion? You assume they are Repubs because they are white? We weren't talking race here. We're we're talking about people who've made poor choices in their lives, the poor, people in jail, etc. I would bet that those two groups are strongly Dems. But my next point was, so what? Hell, If I were dirt poor and dependent on government entitlements, I'd be a democrat too. Thats where my bread is buttered. But their political views has nothing to do with making bad individual life choices as was MJ's point, that somehow a list of scandals with all the democrats edited out means that Repubs are intrinsically dishonest or evil. YOU don't believe that do you Aron? You seem savey enough to know that personal choices to steal or mis use funds favor no party, right?

Mike, I'm basing this on demographic and sociological studies. I'm not looking to get into a discussion on race.

All I know is that I'm tired of this back and forth (and in general. It's getting late). If you want to excoriate MJ for a perceived character flaw, I know he can stand up for himself. I've seen him do it.

We liberals are a minority on the Patches in this area. I accept that.

But I also accept it is time for sleep. Good night.

Brown shouldn't run for senate. It has become clear what this state wants and the type of people who live and vote here. His problem was he did a good job and didn't have a D next to his name on the ballot.

Intheknow
I agree. People here (read:Dems) want there government omnipresent, generous and flush with other peoples money, and will all be taking to the street one day when that spigot runs dry, long after solutions will be, by necessity more painfull to remedy. Demonizing success, capitalism and wealth will eventually have its blow back...but by the time their vision clears, it will only be just in time to watch the country drown.
Brown shouldn't waste his time, nor should any of us on the right. Let the left fry in their own self rightious juices I say. I've got a house in Playa del Carmen, a good supply of margarita mix and a butt load of Jimmy Buffet CD's.
Do whatcha want liberals. I'm good.

First of all you pathetic twit, the word you are looking for is "not"..."nor" is used when you are suggesting that neither of the choices are to be selected. I guess the lesson here is that if you plan on trying to embarrass another person in your response by pointing out their typos, you shouldnt make any yourself. Google "double edged sword" and learn all about it. Dummy.
Second, If THAT is the major thrust of your response is to point out typos, then you can't be serious in any of your responses. That is High School. I find it amazing that those who imagine themselves even a little bit intelligent that when they get their little world crimped by another blogger, the first thing they resort to is looking for spelling, syntax and grammatical errors to point out. That is Caverettas' methodology as well. I consider you a brainless moron anyway for trying to pass off the idea that you can make a list of politicians (conveniently leaving out all the democrats) involved in personal scandals thus proving somehow that the philosophical beliefs of conservatism is somehow deficient. Right there you've convinced me you are a vapid, empty suit. This just seals the deal.
Go away. I'll respond to you if you say something worthwhile or insightful. But I'm not holding my breath. Quick! Go over this response and see if I left any dangling participles or a gerund laying around that you can point out! That'll show him!
Weak sauce dude. You've become immediately boring.

MJ
First of all, I am not smart like you guys. I misspell words, have bad grammar and do other mistakes. However, I worked 2 jobs most of my life to support the family.

According to reports most wealthy suburbs voted democratic, does paying the highest tax rate allow liberal to control those who have not been as fortunate. For instance, requiring many missing class families to visit food pantry instead of allowing the poor to support themselves, it’s all people control promoted by the wealthy suburban liberal. “We Know Better because We are Paying higher taxes”

Hey people, stop with the insults. Patch will end up shutting the thread down. Everybody is smart enough to get the point across without insults. Im just as guilty. I am glad Brown is not running. I am a big supporter, and would vote for him in a minute, But can you blame him for not running? This state is stuck on the Democrats and their ways and it seems most people in Mass like the abuse! After all Dems keep getting voted in. It's like the sone lyrics, "I like it, I love it< I want some more of it! " Until the mindset chnages and people's pockets are turned inside out, things will be status quo.

Anybody who was even partially sentient during the elections saw the direction Obama was taking for his re-election. It was to demonize the wealthy. He never referred to them as successful, just " millionaires and billionaires". Then he minimized their success by telling them that even if they WERE successful, they "didn't build that". He referred to Romneys wealth several times in the debate, building resentment and class envy. Then he connects the wealthy to Wall Street, that perennial punching bag for losers. This all needs to be done as a precursor to justify taking money that someone else earned, and giving it to someone else who had nothing to do with the hard work, risks and effort that was made in earning it. Yes, the left DOES demonize success. How you can come to the conclusion that the left IS success is just warped thinking which is running rampant amongst the proletariat.

Typical unraveling of a comments thread. If you can't convince someone that your viewpoint is correct (when has that ever happened on the internet??), criticize their grammar and spelling.

Scott Brown scares the Democrats. Regardless of the past election they know he was very capable and will continue to be a thorn in their side.

He must they spent millions to beat him.

Living in a nice bedroom community must be nice. You have no idea the damage that has been done in the working class cities thanks to who has been elected.

Scott scares them. but not as scared as they are going to be once EW actually opens her mouth on her own. Has she done anything yet? anything at all? Could be she is waiting to be told what to do, and what stances to take. Starnge for the Senior Senator form any state to be so quiet.

She is going to be a church mouse because in the senate she is a freshman and freshman aren't seen or heard. The liklihood is very small that she will ever gain any stature in an institution where seniority counts. Being a fake Indian may have helped her in academia but in the senate it only makes her a laughingstock.

Vineyard
I don't apologize for my comments to MJ. Your parents taught you the way they felt was right, mine did too. God bless them. God bless mine. They taught me to call a spade a spade, and be honest in everything you do. People who distract from the topic at hand with dishonesty such as pointing out spelling errors are small and desperate. This is what I would tell MJ in a blog, as well as to his face. His approach is basically dishonest, cowardly and manipulative. Every word I wrote I meant. It is probably the most honest exchange you'll see here. I used no foul language and abided by the terms of use that governs Patch. If you follow any of my posts, I am always respectful of others opinions...even if they are "wrong". I enjoy a spirited debate as long as respect is shown on both sides. MJ did not fall into that category.
So I met the dishonesty he spewed with the distain that it deserves. I would hope you would do the same thing. (Sort of like casting out the money lenders from the temple.)
Strong words? I am sorry your sensibilities were offended. I've read your posts and you seem a nice, devout person. But to MJ? If you find you cannot be a good political commenator, dont try to substitute by being an school marm. It only underlines your failings even further. As far as I am concerned, we can move on to other topics.

excuse my spelling errors. hahahahahahah!

Wiley
Yes he does! They might even me the same guy! I understand that some bloggers have several accounts and pose as someone else, just to provide an "amen" to their own comments. Kind of desperate if you ask me. I try to concentrate on the message or thought process someone is trying to get across, and ignore spelling errors. With auto correct, you can type one thing and it end up another...with some hilarious results. But yes, they both similar M.O.'s. on the other hand, Aron levy is smart and feisty, but is honest and will admit when you've made a good point. So there are good folks here to exchange views with.

I appreciate the good will, guys. I only open with insult because I feel (as I admitted earlier), that wliberals are severely under-represented on this board, and going negative seems to be the only way to get our point across.

Regarding the 'Best and Brightest' comment, I used to be a fan of Jay Severin years ago. Then I realized what a terrible person he is. And now he works for Glenn Beck.

But just yesterday, I had the hoary honor of being personally insulted by that vile man on another site. For him to call me a 'disloyal American' is the highest compliment I've received in quite some time.

lol, just decided to join this thread. I admire Jay Severin for calling things by their true names, which he did in your case, Aaron Levy. And I miss his radio shows.

Jay Severin is on the radio at 2:pm http://www.theblaze.com/radio/

Jay Severin is still around? I thought he would be off chasing interns somewhere, Gotta admit, when he first started on the Boston Talk radio scene he was really good and enlightening. Then somewhere along the way he turned nasty and it was actually painful to listen. As for 96.9 ending the talk format, I miss it. I enjoyed listening in the morning and I always tuned in for Micheal Smirconish.

Vineyard
No, no, no, don't refrain. That was not the point of my reply to you. Your opinions are exactly worth 100% as much as mine and everyone else's here on these pages. It's the exchange of ideas, whatever they are, that is what is important here. This format allows a non PC (within limits) conversation that we can't have with our work mates or students or whatever, as the PC police can get you fired, or reprimanded or expelled for saying what is REALLY on your mind. (Thank you Democrats! This ugly turn of intellectual events and censorship is on you! Especially in our colleges). So we must turn to semi anonymous forms of communication to voice our thoughts. Keep listening and learning, vineyard, and if you have something to say, go for it. You are as welcome as anyone here who stays honest and respectful.

The libs squashed the talk radio station because they didn't like the inroads it helpe offer the Rep party in MA. The only accepable mainstream platform now is pablum talk on WGBH, which of course is a conservative friendly outlet, right? Rrrriiiiiiiiigggghhhhttttt.

Open Eyes-
I would LOVE to agree with you on the reason for the demise of 96.9 but the truth is, it was simply a business decision. The numbers just weren't there after Severin left.
WGBH is a fine station if you are a lefty or apolitical. But their soft squew (is that a word?) to the left only supports the non critical leave-me-alone thinking of most people that live here. Kind of like political Muzak for those that are not engaged in politics. They are listening, it sounds topical, so therefore they think they are "staying abreast" of the news, but in fact, it is designed to put the citizenry to sleep with feel good Left-Think. And since it is subsidized by our tax dollars, it will never be subject to the whims of the market place as WTKK and all the rest of us are.

The CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 100% federally funded. It gives 10% of all NPR funding. State and local taxes amount to 6%. So, 16% is tax payer funded. Most businesses operate at between 1% and 10% margin of profit. So this 16% Buffer distorts its business model, to the point that a free market is never actually in play for NPR or Freddie Mack or Fannie Mae type quasi governmental arms of government.
Oh, and I DO listen to both of them. It's very fine programming. All Things Considered. The Jim and Margery Show, i never miss the game shows "Says You" and "Wait Wait"
And I'm a big fan of Garrison Keilors show. Yup ...listen to em all the time. I even contribute during their endless fund drives. But Aron, it IS feel-good leftism. Sorry.

But yes, I DO agree that WGBH is fairer to the right than Rush is to the left. I don't listen to Rush, but when I have, he is pretty on fire. But that has a lot to do with the type of shows they both are. I wouldn't compare WGBH to the Limbaugh Show in any way shape or form. Remember, I said "soft left". So comparing their relative content and level of "fairness" is comparing apples to pineapples. My point is about federal funding, how it distorts the free market (like unions do) and the soft left approach of WGBH. They do include some conservative points of view. Rush does not reciprocate.

Aron
Here is a good article about this disturbing trend about campus speech codes:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/141356

The numbers I got are from a Google search. I can't vouch for them personally. You are free to make your own search. We can't know and have personal experience about everything, right? I try to not make up facts, as I am in a search for the truth, not for validation of what I already believe, so if you have better numbers, let them be known.
Your comment about the Hoover Institute brings me to a question. The Hoover Institute is a conservative think tank, agreed. Am I to understand that along with the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, any organization that is conservative based is automatically considered lying or a disreputible source? So, as a response, any studies or articles by LEFT leaning think tanks should also to be considered liars by me? So any and all critical thought produced by ANY think tank that is either left leaning or right leaning is to be discounted and tossed aside in any conversation? There is NO TRUTH to be found in the studies of EITHER side? Or are you saying that its just the conservative think tanks that twist the truth, but the left leaning think tanks...why THEY are the paragons of truth, never swaying from the facts? Is that your proposition? Then where do we come together? How do we bridge our communication gap if every thing that conservatives thinkers say is a lie or exaggeration, and so is everything YOU say? How do we fix anything? How do we communicate? How do we EVER find a middle?

I don't think the middle can be found anymore, Back in the day when there was no internet, and neighbors actually talked to their neighbors, all the world's issues could be solved in a conversation over the fence after dinner. Now there is so much info out there, so much info available on everything, there can be no middle ground. Forums like this allow many different viewpoints and offer up so much info to be checked on, It's impossible to cover it all, therefore middle ground can never be achieved, Every viewpoint is a counter viewpoint, Every opinion is a different opinion. Middle Ground is long gone I'm afraid.

Earn-
I really, REALLY want to think you are dead wrong. But, I too am losing heart that we can ever be a bi partisan society again, the middle ground being just an anachronism and a memorable souvenir of the Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal's era...never to be seen again. I honestly had hope that Obama would be the vehicle that a lot of racial animosity and tension would be ratcheted down, tempers softened, some reconciliation achieved. But what we got instead was a president that was intent on dividing the races to payback the minorities for the offenses given to them over the years. Divides deepened. The Left went on a spending rampage fueled by self righteousness and imagined moral superiority. Like a OWS mob breaking into Macy's, every theft an act of "justice". The Right reacting with a grass roots movement of entrenchment. Yes, I think the middle ground is in trouble. This administration is partially responsible. The Internet is too. There is no longer tolerance of the right as an alternative set of ideas, but rather it's considered " hate speech" and as such, ipso facto denied a place at the negotiating table, ironically in the name of tolerance, even though half the population holds most of its principals as their own.
You might be right Earnhardt....
Arons dismissal of an article written by the reputable Hoover Institute is, I'm afraid, an example. If we cannot listen to our best and brightest political thinkers, it will only be the radicals left talking.

You know Michael, I may ultimately be wrong, and that's fine too. But I have been on patch for quite a while now, and I have yet to see middle ground reached on any thread, Usually the insults alone make it impossible to comment with reason and knowledge, You end up having to defend whatever point of view you have, or you get sucked into sniping. Aron dismisses viewpoints too easily, I think we all do at times, But this point of view that If it doesn't come from an institute or article or commentator I like and agree with so therefore your point is not valid is becoming the predominate factor here. Aron seems to express that the most. He is a smart guy and has great knowledge on many different subjects, But he has to accept other points of view as valid arguments as well. We all do. if not, the middle ground is a thing of the past. Time for bed, Talk tomorrow.....

Aron?
Wondering about your response to my question about ever finding middle ground. (Note several frames up.). Interested in your reasoned reply.