Last night’s Senate slapfight was a chiropractor’s dream:
Whiplash all around.
One minute Fightin’ Mike Capuano (D-Grimace) is glaring and barking at Scripted Stevie Pagliuca (D-Really! I’m a Regular Guy!). The next he’s saying what good people all his opponents are and how close they’ll stay after this race is over.
(Can’t wait for the big reunion dinner at Olive Garden. Breadsticks on Steve!)
But seriously, what’s with the Caps-slash-Pags smackdown? It’s like they’re battling for second place. Hey, guys – there’s no runoff in this primary. Didn’t your costly handlers tell you that?
Even more head-scratching – what was with the questions at the debate? All due respect to the journalists involved, those were the lamest inquiries this side of the U.S. House ethics investigation of Charlie Rangel.
Worst of the lot: “Why are you more likable than your opponents?”
I yield to no man in my respect for NECN’s RD Sahl, but good lord – did the debate producers have photos of him in Tijuana?
Meantime, Martha Coakley (D-Pack My Bags) weightlessly floated above the fray, while social entrepreneur Alan Khazei (D-Social Entrepreneur) furiously paddled below the waterline.
Bottom line: As of right now, this field is officially in amber.
Somebody book Martha’s flight to D.C.
Campaign Outsider 
Loyalties aside, you have to concede that RJ was trumped in the OMG Question competition by Emily Rooney. With the health care debate raging and the imminent troop deployment to Afghanistan, I, like Emily, truly want to know where the candidates stand on l’affaire(s) Tiger Woods. Did she really believe they would answer her query about whether they had any personal skeletons in their respective closets that they wouldn’t want to see the light of day? “Why, yes I do, Emily. Here’s what could torpedo my candidacy if it were to become known,” may have been the response she hoped for, but none of the Senate hopefuls took the bait.
There were questions asked at Tuesday night’s forum that were just as bad as the ones you describe at Wednesday night’s forum.
For example: asked of Capuano, Why haven’t the Kennedy’s endorsed you? His (correct) answer: I don’t know, ask them. Follow up question repeats the original. Capuano has incredulous look on his face, probably thinking: are these bozos for real? Ugh.
Ask a candidate about who they endorsed in the past and why, not about who endorsed them and why or why not. Ask a candidate about his or her positions on the issues, not about his/her supporters or endorsers positions on the issues.
Questioning about whether or not there is anything embarrassing in your past? Note to so-called journalists: that’s YOUR job to research and uncover, not theirs to hand on a silver platter. File under: baseball bat and shout-fest in a Somerville park (tip of the hat to the Globe).
We put our local candidates for city councilor through much more rigorous questioning than these guys got. There are a zillion big issues in national politics to choose from, so why such bad questions? Are the questioners uninformed? Didn’t they spend hours and hours researching issues in order to write some well-crafted and well-informed questions? Are they that narrow-minded?
Can’t really argue with that.
I was disappointed in the questioning generally, but no one has even come close to trying to ruffle Martha Coakley’s feathers. What about the Fells Acres case, just to begin, and has anyone from another campaign–or the media–examined her fairly substantial record as a prosecutor? She has been allowed to coast to next week’s nomination.
Maybe the questions asked reflect the sorry nature of the the electorate as it is reflected in those that are seen as “serious” journalists.
I will never forget Ms. Rooney’s chagrin after an evening of loving prose lavished on the stunning victory of John Kerry only to find out that George Bush won going away.
Chief — It’s RD Sahl, not Saul. Got your back. Sporadically.
Thanks, Bud. Sporadically works for me.