Talk:Mike Capuano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mike Capuano has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 14, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

This is death panels...... You’re going to be the Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party[edit]

,” Pagliuca said, as Capuano laughed. Source http://www.wbur.org/2009/12/03/final-debate Context: NEWTON, Mass.—Michael Capuano and Stephen Pagliuca were in the middle of a debate broadcast by NECN and WBUR. Capuano was explaining that if Congress keeps the restrictions on funding of abortion, he would vote against the health care bill. Then Pagliuca jumped in.

“I will not vote to send poor women back to the alleys of America,” Capuano said.

“Michael, Michael, Michael—hold on,” Pagliuca blurted.

“Hang on, Steve. Let me finish,” Capuano said.

“That’s ridiculous. That’s like death panels,” Pagliuca said.

“Are we going to get into this again, Steve? Are we going to be able to move forward?” Capuano asked.

“You can’t say things like that. That’s ridiculous,” Pagliuca responded.

“I can’t pay for it like you can,” Capuano shot back.

“That’s not true, and that’s ridiculous,” Pagliuca said.

“I mean, am I going to be able to finish, or are we going to have this childish going back and forth again?” Capuano asked sharply.

They would be having the back and forth again.

Pagliuca has been trying to differentiate himself from Capuano and Attorney General Martha Coakley by saying that he would vote for any legislation that expands health insurance coverage, whether it restricts funding of abortions or not. Pagliuca pounced once again when Capuano was talking about the days before abortion became legal.

“We all know doctors that lost their licenses who did these things,” Capuano said.

“That’s Roe v. Wade,” Pagliuca interjected. “This isn’t a reversal of Roe v. Wade.”

“Excuse me, Steve,” Capuano said.

“You’re confusing the issue,” Pagliuca said.

“No, it’s not a confusing of the issue,” Capuano responded.

“This is death panels. You’re going to be the Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party,” Pagliuca said, as Capuano laughed.

Pagliuca and Capuano also mixed it up over regulation of banks. Pagliuca opposes regulations that would limit the size of banks.

“You don’t need to collapse banks,” Pagliuca said.

“Nobody’s trying to collapse them,” Capuano replied. “We’re simply trying to limit them and spread the wealth. That’s the problem. You believe in concentrated wealth—which I don’t blame you, concentrated wealth in your life is a little bit more than in any of the others that I know. I respect that—but I believe in a spreading of the wealth.”

“I don’t believe in demagoguery and these kinds of attacks,” Pagliuca said.

“I do believe in spreading the wealth around to the general public,” Capuano shot back.

“It’s another personal attack,” Pagliuca protested. “If that’s your methodology, then let’s not even talk about anything.”

“It’s not a personal attack,” Capuano retorted.

Throughout this debate, broadcast statewide, the front-runner, Coakley, pretty much sailed through while the men in a statistical tie for second place argued. But at one point, Coakley, too, got into a scrape with Pagliuca. She was in the middle of explaining that she believes both the federal government and the states should regulate the financial industry.

“You say this is what you can’t do, and if you violate it, it can be enforced at the state level,” Coakley said.

“I thought your plan is state-by-state,” Pagliuca interjected. “That’s what it says. You said that you don’t want the national government to do it. It’s in the Boston Globe. You said you don’t want the national government to do it. You want it to be state by state. States’ rights should have primacy over this.”

The candidates were also asked whether they would reveal who gives money to them. It’s already public information, but City Year co-founder Alan Khazei wanted the others to post it on their Web sites.

“I plead guilty to getting money from Leonard Nimoy,” Khazei said. “I’m a Star Trek fan. Live long and prosper.”

The candidates split on how to pay for the war in Afghanistan. Capuano said he would actually vote to cut off funding for the war. Coakley and Pagliuca said they opposed a war tax, but Khazei said he’d support it.

This was the men’s last big chance to make an impression before a large audience and shake up Coakley’s front-runner status. To achieve that Wednesday night, Capuano and Pagliuca went after each other.

But sometimes, when two candidates do that, they end up hurting each other and a third candidate benefits. With the primary next week, they’ll find out soon enough whether the rumble was a good tactic. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.93.138 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Election to Congress[edit]

Should someone mention how he first got elected to Congress? The Democratic Primary in this very liberal district had a 7-way race. Former Boston Mayor and Vatican ambassador, Ray Flynn, a social conservative, was ahead in the polls but far below 50%. With his solid hometown base in Somerville (no one had a base in the largest city in the district, Cambridge), Capuano was running 2nd. The bulk of the supporters of the other 5 candidates switched to Capuano at the last minute, because being 2nd, he had the best chances of stopping Flynn. Bostoner (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

REQUEST: Add "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary" to article[edit]

I happened to be looking through the political world, when I came across that quote. Fox News referenced it here and directed the viewer to the full item at "The Hill". The Tea Party Express also brought this toattention in one of their e-mails, that, while biased, quotes the quote properly (see section title).

Surely, amongst these three, and amongst the plethora of re-posts and blogs, you can glean this as a verified, actually-said, Wikipedia-worthy quote.

I'd add it, but I don't know where to put it. Can an experienced editor please come and help put this in? This is a very noteworthy and relevant quote to the current Wisconsin protests.

Thank you.


--99.157.108.248 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Capuano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. PrairieKid (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I felt it was very well-written. Green tickY
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The second paragraph of the Tenure section needs more citations. Citation 20 does not list out all of the positions mentioned. The 4th paragraph could also use another could use a citation. The one provided is written (for lack of a better term) in hindsight. One that was written during the original dispute, before the apology would be good. Besides that, I would say they are all in. ?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Again, with the Tenure section. He has been in office for 15 years, yet the section only has 5 paragraphs, and does not talk about his 5 years in office. The elections section should also be expanded. Red XN
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No problems there. Green tickY
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Good. Green tickY
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Red XN I would like another image. Perhaps one of his earlier Congressional years, him campaigning, or him giving a speech on the House Floor.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I will put this article on hold for one week. The tenure section needs more citations and simply MORE and another image would be very useful. I think it can easily be done in a week. Thanks for all the work already put in to this article and all the work to come.


I now think this article meets the criteria. For further improvement, I would suggest adding to the tenure section. For now, however, I think the article is up to par. Nice work! PrairieKid (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Secretary of the Commonwealth section[edit]

I think this should go chronologically, before his congressional run. It's not necessarily a "higher office" than Congressman, and it's part of the context for his decision to run for Congress instead. —Designate (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree on this, there is only Secretary of the Commonwealth and it's a statewide office, so it is a "higher" office. Also, it fits with the section of running for other offices, aka the Senate and Governor. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 22:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Though this dispute is old, chronologically his run for Secretary came when he was mayor of Somerville, making it a higher office than the one he held. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)