Not everyone is on Twitter and all the tweet references are screenshots without links, so it’s tough a) to know if the six tweets attributed to former City Councilor Jim Cote in an anonymous flyer distributed by Councilor Emily Norton and in an email of still unknown provenance are real and b) to find the tweets to understand the context of each, if any.
The tweets are real. Here are links to all of them.
From the flyer:
The Ward 3 GOP email is not as easy to display here.
It has screenshots of the following four tweets, in this order:
The tweet about vaccines, tweet B, above.
What a surprise!!!! No kidding the media was conspiring against the electorate. Liberal media ‘snuffed out' Hunter Biden coverage until after election to help defeat Trump, critics say https://t.co/gtCjoeZMmq #FoxNews
— James Cote (@JimCoteWard3) December 10, 2020
Lets face it this is another Clinton spin on truth and reality. Stop making a mockery of our way of life. The vote, good/bad, is closed. https://t.co/4RnfJkQjph
— James Cote (@JimCoteWard3) November 28, 2016
Welcoming @RepGeoffDiehl to the @biltmorenewton after a HUGELY succesful debate for US Senate. Local State Rep will represent #massachusetts in the Senate!!!! pic.twitter.com/WCao33C5DJ
— James Cote (@JimCoteWard3) October 31, 2018
Note: while Councilor Norton has acknowledged distributing the flyers, there is no evidence that she is connected to the email.
He also credited Trump for creating COVID vaccines. Yikes. His Twitter is a rough read.
If it walks like a duck….
@MMQC – One of the few good things Trump did during his administration is he did in fact pour huge resources into funding vaccine development … Yes, and then went on to undermine deployment of the vaccine.
Did he do a good job on Covid? Absolutely not.
Did he marshall the US government’s resources to develop, produce, and manufacture the vaccines? I believe he did.
MMQC, perhaps I’m lumped in with those “progressives doing contortions to defend Jim Cote’s tweets”. That certainly isn’t my intention. I am willing, though, to look at facts and see how people who think differently than me might say the things they say.
Donald Trump did not develop the COVID vaccines. That was done by a variety of biotech companies, based in no small part on research done by scientists who immigrated from the countries of their birth.
That said, Operation Warp Speed, funded under the Trump administration, enabled the creation and/or production of the COVID vaccines currently in use at a historically unprecedented rate. It was the sole notable successful element of an otherwise disastrous and politicized COVID response. Moderna and J&J’s vaccines were funded to $2.5 billion. Pfizer-BioNTech was funded privately and by Germany, but received $2 billion in advance purchases under OWS and stated publicly they were part of the program. Other vaccines were speculatively funded but have not yet produced fully successful results.
Because the Trump administration put such an oversized emphasis on the success of the vaccine to defeat COVID, and further given the politicization of that administration’s COVID response, there was significant and well-founded concern that FDA approval of the vaccines might also be politicized, leading to a rushed release before the safety of them were fully established. I was certainly concerned about it.
The following press release from Senator Ed Markey’s office gives you some sense of this concern:
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/warren-blumenthal-and-markey-urge-cares-act-inspectors-general-to-investigate-political-interference-in-trump-administrations-covid-19-response
Quote: “And President Trump has already floated the idea that a vaccine could be ready before Election Day – indicating that the Administration may continue to exert political pressure on the FDA.”
That concern ebbed during the approval process and after election day, when the political benefit for Trump passed and he turned his interest to overturning the presidential election.
Both Senators Markey and Warren received their COVID vaccine doses on December 19, 2020 as part of a public encouragement campaign.
I can only think how many lives would have been saved had Donald Trump promoted the vaccines his administration had funded with the same zeal that he had hawked his relabeled overpriced steaks, middling vodka, and ripoff business classes.
So, were they Trump’s vaccines? No, just like it’s not Al Gore’s Internet (“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”). But Al Gore did work to fund the underpinnings of the Internet when he was a Senator. I strongly believe he deserves a fair share of credit for enabling the Internet as we know it (he was also real a tech nerd, so that where the parallels greatly diverge!). The Trump administration deserves credit for funding a highly successful Operation Warp Speed.
Rather than considering Jim Cote’s tweet to be some sort of Trump worship, I view it as repeating a Fox News sour-grapes interpretation of what actually happened. A distorted interpretation perhaps, but denying the success of the Trump administration funded OWS is also selective memory.
I neither will, nor have a desire to, defend the rest of Jim Cote’s tweets, which are like 5% political (I wish Sean would have also posted the link to his entire twitter feed). Perhaps we should have had this discussion a couple of months ago and not when prompted by inflammatory attacks.
I will, though, go on record as appreciating any effort by the news media to cover up anything about Hunter Biden, who does not reflect on his father but will not be invited to any parties of mine for the foreseeable future. I also believe that the un-American act of Supreme Court confirmation wasn’t Amy Coney Barrett, with whom I frequently disagree. It was Merrick Garland.
“I view it as repeating a Fox News sour-grapes interpretation of what actually happened”
…. Why is that even remotely acceptable?? Why is repeating Fox News talking points somehow ok?
MMQC,
“Why is that even remotely acceptable??”
As I have said repeatedly, consistently, and since at least 2019, it isn’t. Jim continues to be a very troubling political figure in Newton. He continues to voluntarily associate with an organization that seems dedicated to instilling a white, theocratic autocracy. I find it either willful or ignorant to deny that reality and claim to be a different kind of Republican.
I will also note that Jim strikes me as personally decent in a way that is very much at odds with his political affiliation.
It is a conundrum.
What is this, then umpteenth post in two days? It’s hard to take cries of decisiveness seriously, when all we are seeing as laser focused amplification of discourse on this blog. “Hillary’s emails” much?
We get it, v14 doesn’t like Emily (nor Julia, Pam [Wright], Marc [Laredo], etc.), but the infatuation with smearing (yes, smearing) Emily and constant posts are starting to read like the diary of a spurned teen crush. “Alexa, play anything by ‘The Cure’”.
I’m not a Ward 3 voter, so I didn’t receive any of the emails or the flyer. Was the photo of Trump looking crazy on the flyer or the email? That’s the incendiary piece. That’s the one that needs attribution. It’s disgusting to associate that photo with Jim Cote and anyone who did so knows it.
I find the whole incident just awful. That we’ve sunk so low in our political campaigns, with people are trying to justify it -that just really disturbing.
@Jane – saw your comments on some other threads, and I’m sure you’ll make your way to this post at some point today. 😉
Have Newton politics sunk to an all time low? You’re probably right. Between this and the leaf blower ordinance (multiple posts on Next Door this week and last) Newton is living up to its reputation as a whiny, entitled community.
But let’s not pretend that erosion of civility did not come from both sides, with no bullhorn louder than v14. Going to step away for a bit, take my kid driving today (new learner’s permit) and enjoy some good football. You know how to find me if you want to chat.
Enjoy your Sundays everyone. Get off the computer, phone and tablet. Not many sunny, warmish days left. #WinterIsComing
An update to an old sayin’ is needed.
But I’m probably too old to come up with it.
I’ll try.
Politics ain’t FarmVille
Politics ain’t Candy Crush
Politics ain’t Super Mario Bros
am I close?
MMQC says: “Why is that even remotely acceptable?? Why is repeating Fox News talking points somehow ok?”
That’s for everyone to decide on their own. My take is that we constantly have to be aware of biases and blinds spots – in other people, in our sources, and in ourselves. Within reasonable limits, I generally would prefer to know what people think and get them engaged in conversation rather than bottling it up by labeling it unacceptable. That’s one reason why I try to be a bridging influence on forums like this one. I’m often surprised what I learn about my own biases and preconceptions.
My line of “reasonable” falls when the people decide to subvert the system: insurrection, blind allegiance, rigid or extremist ideologies, indoctrination, or win at all costs.
I also believe that lack of communication leading to isolation and alienation are significant risks to our democratic institutions in themselves.
“I generally would prefer to know what people think and get them engaged in conversation rather than bottling it up by labeling it unacceptable. ”
Exactly why I found the tweets illuminating. I knew nothing about Mr. Cote. Now, via those tweets, I know a lot more.
Yes, this is a lot of posts on this topic. I think it’s a limitation of the medium. There are several parallel and sometimes emerging sub-threads to this story. They all help complete the picture of what’s going on.
I don’t feel each thread necessarily meets the “least publishable unit” status, but a mega 400+ comment post that captured all these nuances and breaking changes isn’t workable either.
Rick, look at all the tweets. By focusing on these small number, the people who wanted to pigeonhole Jim Cote get to drive the narrative. Maybe you’ll feel the same way, maybe you won’t. I hate Twitter anyway.
https://twitter.com/jimcoteward3
You’ve made that clear, Sean, we are in agreement here and my comment is in response to Mike Halle who seems to downplay Jim’s tweets as cute or quirky but not damaging. (Which they are)
He is a nice guy and I certainly don’t think he deserves what happened yet those are his tweets.
“He is a nice guy and I certainly don’t think he deserves what happened yet those are his tweets.”
Could not have put it better.
For those complaining about the number of posts on the topic, there’s a simple solution: don’t read the posts that don’t interest you or that you find excessive.
MMQC, I defend the man, not the tweets. I make that defense of him based on what I know of him and what other people I trust say of him. I try to understand the tweets based on what I believe is a factual perspective, but I disagree with them.
I also feel that equating Jim Cote’s tweets to the provocations of insurrectionists lacks important nuance. It risks clouding our understanding of the real and ongoing threat of insurrection or any other form of usurpation of democracy in this country.
I look forward to voting for Trump again in 2024
Anyone who voted for Julia Malakie instead of Jim Cote because of Emily Norton’s anonymous lit drop or the false flag GOPWard3 emails is a total eejit. End of story.
In fact, I would go so far to say that anyone who voted for Julia Malakie is a total eejit. Or a NIMBY. Or both.
Oh Ted I love it when you belittle and name call people because they disagree with you! But in all seriousness I would love to know with you constant defending if you agree with Cotes hunter Biden conspiracy tweet?
“… anyone who voted for Julia Malakie is a total eejit. Or a NIMBY. Or both.”
And yet again Ted contributes to the toxic tone of local politics. Isn’t that comment a violation of V14’s comment policy?
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary
Calling somebody an eejit in Ireland is a friendly way of calling somebody out.
@MMQC, who is this “Ted” of which you speak? I am The Rapscallion Stallion.
@Simon French, thank you for the translation. 😉
BTW, @MMQC, who the hell are you to call anyone else out when you won’t even use your real name or photograph for you Avatar? Adult much?
Alison D, I am interested why that particular Hunter Biden-related retweet so concerning to you, since it always seemed to me that the Hunter Biden storyline was a strange tangent. Personally, I find news stories about him to be an unwanted and unpleasant distraction that has nothing to do with either candidate or President Biden, but I don’t care for tabloids either.
Out of curiosity based on your question, I did check to see the context of the tweet.
Turns out if was the day after the day that CNN, New York Times, and the Washington Post all published confirmation that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation (and Hunter Biden confirmed it):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigation.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/hunter-biden-under-federal-investigation/2020/12/09/3b7361be-3a64-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html
CNN at least implies that in this case, DOJ followed its long-standing policy of not interfering with the election (the thing they didn’t do with Hillary Clinton) and held its investigation until after the election. And that was the right and professional thing to do.
So that’s the historical context. It’s not my tweet, so I guess I direct further questions to the sender.
Mike, I don’t know if everyone has forgotten what happened during those times, as in December of 2020 when he tweeted that, but the foundation of our democracy was in shambles, the country as a whole had yet to Fully acknowledge and expect what happened on January 6th and the events leading up to that horrific day, so yeah that tweet is personal Coming from an aspiring politician, all of this could’ve been avoided if cote simply deleted the tweets before running again but he obviously stands by it, it’s horrifying and if you can’t see that then shame on you
Alison, I consider Hunter Biden a big nothing burger. News and rumors about him were part of a salacious tactic to smear his father. That’s a pretty despicable but all pretty well-worn tactic in politics, far predating the modern insurrectionist.
Perhaps put it this way. I agree with you that tweeting about Hunter Biden come Dec 10 is putting the trivial before the big picture: a losing incumbent engaging in increasingly undemocratic actions in an attempt to retain power.
But if that’s the case, this tweet is kind of a sideshow.
Why not just get to the point and ask Jim Cote about his views on Jan. 6 or any of the other concerning issues around the Presidential election and its aftermath? And why didn’t this questioning happen during the campaign so that he could freely respond before the election? This is a question only Jim Cote can answer.
With regard to your last point, I’m also not convinced on the idea that deleting tweets is clearly better than leaving up contemporaneous comments. The act of deletion can be interpreted as either retraction or cover-up, especially for a politician.
@Simon French, I owe you a better, more fulsome answer to your question about Councilor Malakie’s question about why LGBTQ people should be asked as a group for their opinions on zoning.
Initially, I was willing to give Julia the benefit of the doubt, when others on social media who are on the opposite side from her on other issues were willing to believe the worst, in no small part because she was on the opposite side. It was akin, in my mind at least, to identity politics. As someone whose words–written or oral–are often misconstrued or give offense, I asked whether they would have reacted in the same way if those words had come from a self-identified LGBTQ person. And I believe it would make a difference to at least some people in how they would then respond. What some of those folks on my side of the political spectrum were doing was imposing a “reverse halo” effect on her words, because they already did not like her policies or opinions. In other words, she’s bad, so the words she used were bad. Subsequently, the attempts she and her supporters made to explain what she meant were, shall we say, awkward at best, and the benefit of the doubt gave way, at least in my mind.
It should come as no surprise, then, that I take issue with those who are now defending Emily Norton and are too willing to draw negative conclusions about Jim Cote based on her anonymous flyer and the anonymous false flag emails from a non-existent GOPWard3 organization. Smart, good people should not be taken in by such smears. I can say with all sincerity that some of my best friends did, indeed, vote for Trump (some of them twice), and that I am totally disgusted by self-proclaimed progressives like Emily, who created this ugliness less than 48 hours before an election.
Recently, I have had some disheartening dialogues with people who call themselves liberal and anti-racist, but oppose affirmatively furthering fair housing by curtailing single family zoning to allow construction of multi-family housing in and around village centers and public transportation. The same kind of disheartening dialogues I have been having with people who swear they support affordable housing, but vehemently oppose viable housing strategies that include adding any density or more kids in the public schools. So, while I only watch FoxNews for its absurdist theater, I have come to believe that there is a liberal cancel culture which sadly mirrors and is every bit as pernicious as the cancel culture over on the right.
People who have been working on active anti-racism for many years, myself included, sometimes call people out in a way that serves only to alienate, not educate or persuade. What could be a teachable moment or an opportunity to turn someone’s heart or mind is lost, because of the self-righteous shaming. Or, we write someone off because we just assume they are not and never will be “woke,” a word first used by African-Americans in a positive sense of someone who is alert to racial prejudice and discrimination, but which has become a derisive insult used, most recently, by Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers to deflect criticism for shading the truth about not being vaccinated against COVID.
There is another way, although Village 14 is simply not the right forum for it. Instead of “calling out” someone for saying or doing something that comes across as racist, try “calling in” that person. There are a lot of books, articles, and theses on this subject, but I will only refer to one here: “Calling In Vs. Calling Out: How to Talk About Inclusion” by Maya Hu-Chan. She was not the first to up with the terminology, but she presents a brief, really good primer on how it can be used effectively. If someone says something at a public meeting, at a dinner party, at the office (or on Village 14), in stead of calling them out for it, call them in. Approach them in a non-threatening, non-confrontational way and say “something you said didn’t quite land right with me. Would you like to get together over coffee or tea to talk about it? Because I really want to understand what you were trying to say.”
Which is, of course, why it would never work here. Many of you post anonymously, so I wouldn’t know who you are or how to get in touch with you to start a civil conversation. And, in the heat of the moment, it can be very satisfying to really zing someone, especially if they post anonymously, because that way you don’t really have to feel responsible for them or their feelings. I speak from personal experience on this latter point. Indeed, I freely admit that sometimes I will be deliberately provocative just to get a rise out of someone. That is just the nature of this blog, and I am not sure whether or how to change that.
Anyway, I hope you all will at least read the article, and maybe get some insight into the virtues of “calling in” vs. “calling out” someone who says something that doesn’t land well with you in your real (not virtual) life. Until next time, this The Rapscallion Stallion, self-appointed crusader for self-righteous indignation on [anti-]social media, signing off.
@Rapscallion Stallion, I agree with you on calling in vs calling out. Let’s use Councillor Malakie’s now infamous query as an example. I would have been afraid to ask the question for reasons that became apparent in the reaction to it. But if you sort through the noise, there was some “calling in.” I recall learning a few things from Councillor Humphrey and Brian Barash in particular, who explained that the LGBTQ community does indeed face some unique housing challenges, hence the need for the focus group. Taken as an honest question, there were honest answers to be proffered. Many of us, myself included, became better for hearing the answers. The answers would not have come had the question not been asked. But even if the question was perceived as illegitimate and offensive, “calling in” is still the appropriate response.
While we can debate whether the question should have been asked, it was an *opportunity* to explain in a constructive way why some people might find it hurtful, and to make the impacts of structural discrimination more salient for the large majority of people who are willing to listen. Expressing outrage and calling out is not helpful for either side. I’m sure it hurt Councillor Malakie to be cast as as something she’s not. But it also sets back the LGBTQ and anti-racist movements when its proponents call people out. All the calling out puts the intolerant shoe on the other foot, and makes it practically impossible for us to walk together.
Ted, you suffer from what Lenny Bruce called ” the liberal’s dilemma”:
“I just can’t understand why people aren’t as understanding as I am.”
@LDS – Totally agree
@LDS – Well stated
I made a longer comment in the thread about Susan Albright and Julia Malakie, but I’ll support Rap’s and LDS’s comment here.
We don’t have to wait for “calling out” or “calling in”. We can start by listening to each other, no “calling” (i.e., confronting a point of disagreement or conflict) required.
Which was, ironically, what the Planning Department’s focus groups for zoning vision was supposed to do: to reach people who otherwise might not be reached, with no preconceived notions of what we might hear.
It’s also what Amy Sangiolo did very effectively in her online video forums during the campaign. The discussions were stronger specifically because some experts and community members had differing views.
Let’s keep looking for ways to hear from more voices in our community, and less time prejudging ahead of time what we think those voices would say or mean. If the city’s trying to do that, I’m all for it.
Really really glad to read the last few posts. I’m better for having read them and thought about them.
Civility in dialogue …