Looking back at Coakley and Brown: how did they get here?

The New Neo Posted on by

Since most of us weren’t paying a whole lot of attention to the Massachusetts Senate race during the build up to the primary, or in the early days of the post-primary campaign, many people might be wondering how it was that someone as profoundly uncharismatic as Martha Coakley came to be the nominee. Another question is what may have motivated Brown to enter the seemingly quixotic race to win a Senate seat as a Republican from Massachusetts.

So let’s take a little trip back in time.

Looking backwards to the vote on December 9, 2009, (see this), the first thing to notice is that the primaries didn’t get a lot of attention. This is generally true in off-year special elections, and even more true this time, partly because there were no high-profile charismatic entries on the Democratic side (the only side that was thought to matter), and partly because there was virtually no difference among the four Democratic candidates in their positions on issues. In DC, each of them would be almost certain to vote the straight liberal party line. And it was to DC that the winner among them was thought to be inevitably headed.

Even the New York Times characterized the primary race as “notably bereft of drama” and “sleepy.” The turnout was so low that the Worchester Examiner called it “pathetic.” Nobody was excited, and hardly anyone cared except the candidates themselves.

So the voting probably came down to the partly faithful and politically attuned. For Democrats that meant voting for Coakley, the person who’d been the first to declare her intention to seek the seat, who had gotten Bill Clinton’s as well as many union endorsements, and was by far the most well-known statewide. Although Coakley’s resume may seem thin compared to other US Senators—she had spent her career mostly as a DA, ascending to the Massachusetts AG’s office only in 2007, and had no legislative experience whatsoever—it was thickish compared to two of her three other opponents, only one of whom had ever held statewide office (Capuano, a member of the US House).

One of the factors in Coakley’s win may have been that “progressive” Massachusetts had never sent a woman to the Senate, a fact Martha didn’t hesitate to mention in her campaign. The voters may have felt it was time to rectify that omission, since any of these Democrats would be as good as any other in terms of their voting propensities in the Senate, and any one of them was going to easily beat the poor sap the Massachusetts Republican Party had managed to persuade to enter the uneven fray in order to be humiliated.

Although Coakley didn’t win a majority in the four-way primary race, she got 48% of the vote, almost 20 points more than her nearest competitor Capuano. She must have breathed a sigh of relief: next stop, Senate! Her job was to keep a low profile and coast to victory.

As for Brown, he won his race by 89%; his opponent was considered to be only a nominal one. The real question was why did he run in the first place, since everyone agreed his chance of victory was slim to none? This article from last September, when Brown announced his candidacy, indicates that there was a very small pool of candidates to choose from: Massachusetts has only five (count ’em, five) Republicans in its state legislature, and there are no Republicans holding any statewide office. What’s more [emphasis mine]:

Jody Dow, the Republican National Committee chairwoman for Massachusetts, said Brown is a strong candidate whom party leaders have long eyed as a prospect for statewide office.

So someone in the nearly-moribund Massachusetts Republican Party noticed they had something special in Brown. Maybe he was even tapped to run, and he probably thought it might be good publicity and a springboard to later statewide office of some sort.

But by far the most interesting part of the article about Brown’s candidacy announcement back in September of 2009 was that Brown seemed to take his own campaign very seriously from the start, plotting out the precise course the would put him in the spot he’s in now, and even using some of the same lines. Perhaps you’ll recognize a few of them here [emphasis mine]:

“I have always thought that being in government service is a privilege, not a right. This Senate seat doesn’t belong to any one person or political party. It belongs to you, the people, and the people deserve a US senator who will always put your interests first…I believe that it is the private sector—small businesses and entrepreneurs—that will get our economy moving again. Government can and will help, but it also needs to know when to step out of the way”…

He pledged he would run a “clean and mean” campaign and promised he would not be beholden to special interests. “My opponents are already pandering to special interests. That’s not the way I operate,” he said.

Well, Brown’s campaign has been clean—although not all that mean—and he’s continued to deliver the same message, one that was carefully chosen back in September to resonate with the feelings of the electorate. Smart man, with good instincts.

After Brown won the primary, local journalist and blogger Jules Crittenden was understandably pessimistic about his chances. But although Crittenden thought a Coakley win was almost inevitable, he also believed there was a tiny chance of a Brown victory if the following unlikely circumstances were to happen to come together: “remarkable gaffes by Coakley, an extraordinary and deft effort by Brown, and probably external events such as a Democratic health-care debacle.”

Crittenden may have scored the trifecta, because all three seem to have occurred in short order in the month since he wrote the post. Blogger Sissy Willis also saw some possibilities, because she titled her immediate post-primary post “Think Scott Brown can’t win? Here’s why he can.”

Brown certainly hasn’t won yet; I’m not counting those chickens. But he’s put the fear into the entire Democratic Party, is leading in many polls right now, and has made himself a national and inspirational figure for Republicans and Independents around the nation.

Not bad for a month’s work.

[ADDENDUM: Jules Crittenden, a witty man, clears up the record some more. And praises yours truly into the bargain.]

Haiti: amidst the horror, a few good stories

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s only about one small child who was saved, to be sure. But whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.

I have highlighted this story not only because of the heartwarming fact that the four-year old child trapped for three days alone in the rubble of a building was saved after hope might have been abandoned, but because amidst all the stories of shootings and lootings it shows ordinary people getting together to do a great and noble thing:

People in the street ran to get a glimpse of Paul Derlice [the boy] as he was carried down a huge pile of rubble by the heroic Haitian men who slaved for hours in the blazing sun to free him.

Strangers formed a large circle around the small boy and jostled each other out of the way to get a closer look, reaching their hands into the sky and exclaiming: “God lives!”

The rescue effort had begun after a voice was heard in the wreckage. In the absence of help from authorities or official rescue workers, the neighbors took matters into their own hands:

A group of neighbors – swelling in size to as many as 10 men – began digging for Paul using whatever primitive resources they had on hand.

In the terrible chaos and suffering following the earthquake, some people are taking advantage of the situation in order to do bad things. But others—and far more of them, I’d wager—are rising to the occasion to do good.

Brown is sweeping the country

The New Neo Posted on by

If you study blogosphere and newspaper comments boards, it’s hard to escape the impression that an extraordinary number of people around the country seem to have heard of the Massachusetts special election because—unlike many such votes—this one feels like it matters to us all.

People are cheering Brown on in a populist, grassroots, “take back our country from the dread ultra-liberals who have hijacked it” way, and they’re putting their money where their mouths are. Over and over, I read the equivalent of: “Do it for [fill in state’s name]!” “Wish we had someone like him here in [fill in the state’s name]!” and “Can we clone this guy?”

You couldn’t write this script if you tried (or maybe you could, come to think of it). It would be deemed too unrealistic, too unlikely, and too pat, especially the Massachusetts angle.

The ironies and resonances abound. There’s the fact that this is only happening because of longtime liberal leader Ted Kennedy’s death, and that the health reform bill that could be jettisoned as a result was meant to be a monument to his life’s work. Another is that Brown wouldn’t even have had the chance to run if the Democrats of Massachusetts hadn’t tried to finesse things by changing the law time and again; otherwise Democrat Governor Deval Patrick could have appointed a senator to fill out Kennedy’s entire term and it would have been ho-hum news.

There’s also the little detail that Brown is one of the most personable and telegenic candidates ever, who seems to convey exactly the right tone and a good sense of what the country is looking to hear right now. As if that weren’t enough, the American Revolution (and the original Tea Party) began in Massachusetts, even though that long and proud tradition has been ground into the dirt by many decades of liberal hegemony.

The sense of unity among Brown supporters—of “we’re all in this together”—is both profound and encouraging. So maybe Obama (with a big assist from the Pelosi-Reid Congress) has kept his campaign promise and united America, after all.

Krauthammer: what a difference a year makes

The New Neo Posted on by

Charles Krauthammer reflects on Obama’s first year. A few highlights of the article [emphasis mine]:

The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It’s inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn’t just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America’s deeply and historically individualist polity.

Saving Haiti

The New Neo Posted on by

“Only the world can come to our rescue,” says a stricken Haitian.

The Haitian government, ordinarily good for nothing save corruption and exploitation, has been hard hit itself. The UN, which would ordinarily coordinate relief efforts, is busy counting its own dead, searching for its missing, and rescuing its own living.

That leaves the people of Haiti on their own, in a rapidly deteriorating situation in which the disease is starting to threaten, and looters are becoming more commonplace.

One of the diseases mentioned is measles. Why is that a problem? Half of Haiti’s children are unvaccinated and therefore at risk. Those terrible villains—Big Pharma corporations—are donating medicines, especially antibiotics.

As is so often the case in disasters, “the world” that might be relied on to help refers mainly to the United States, at least at the moment. We are near, we have the capacity, we have the resources and experience, and we also have the will, although the world even doesn’t always give us credit for it.

Dare we believe…

The New Neo Posted on by

…in this sort of hope and change?

The only poll that counts, of course, is the one on election day. But this is mighty sweet right now.

[ADDENDUM: You can’t make this stuff up (hat tip: commenter “turfmann”). But apparently, Martha Coakley can.

She may just be the Worst. Candidate. Ever. Hope the electorate is paying enough attention to find that out before next Tuesday.]

[ADDENDUM II: Someone posted this quote from Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” on the comments to the poll report:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.]

[ADDEDDUM IV: Now here’s a ringing endorsement for Coakley. With support like this, it’s no wonder she’s lost her momentum:

Let’s get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what’s she’s getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC…

You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing…

Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.]

[ADDENDUM V: “You gotta have heart.” Not.]

New health care “reform” compromises stink

The New Neo Posted on by

Right now we’re not just watching sausage being made—it’s excrement that’s in the works.

Read about the compromises being considered in an attempt to put a bit of room freshener on the stinking pile of garbage that health care “reform” has become.

I don’t usually use such strong language. But I think it appropriate in this case, which involves the possible exemption of unions from the excise tax on all other “cadillac” health plans. Even the commenters at the ultra-liberal TPM are not pleased by that one:

And that’s supposed to make the taxed non-union middle-class workers happy?

This is a tax on the middle-class. Obama has broken a huge campaign promise. The Republican will and should campaign on that theme. It is a fact. It is true.

Politics ain’t beanbag, and most people realize that. But most people would like to see at least a modicum of integrity, from their own side as well as the other one, even if it’s only the appearance of integrity.

The topic of health care and what to do about it is the subject here. But the real subject is the process we are seeing—which indicates that our government has lost all sense of decency and fair play, and is not even trying to hide it.

Martha Coakley and the child molesters

The New Neo Posted on by

Just for a moment, forget about how compelling a candidate Scott Brown is. And forget about how nice it would be to have a Republican senator from Massachusetts, and a 41st vote against Obamacare.

Forget? Why?

Because, even if those things were not true, Martha Coakley should be defeated anyway, because of her record.

Most of Coakley’s professional experience has been as a prosecutor in Middlesex County, part of it as Chief of the Child Abuse Prosecution Unit, and some as DA. Compare and contrast the following four cases of child molestation with which Coakley was associated, and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about:

(1) In 2005 Somerville police officer Keith Winfield was strongly suspected of raping and genitally burning his 23-month-old niece with a hot curling iron. As DA, Coakley headed a unit that investigated without taking action at first, and later allowed him to be released on personal recognizance with no cash bail. Winfield ultimately was prosecuted by Coakley’s successor as DA and given two life sentences. And remember, the details of this story critical of Coakley appeared in the ultra-liberal Boston Globe (note the angry tone of the comments to the piece, as well).

(2) In 2008 a father punched out a janitor in a Market Basket supermarket because he found the employee reaching in under a bathroom stall in the men’s room to touch the leg of the man’s 4-year old child while the boy was urinating. The illegal alien janitor was charged with indecent assault (he later no showed at his hearing), but the boy’s father was also charged with assault. Coakley’s comment on a radio show? “We really discourage people from self-help.”

(3) Coakley was originally lax in prosecuting the man who ended up being one of the most notorious of the Catholic priest child abusers, Father Geoghan. In her defense in this case, however, is the fact that at the time the evidence first came into her hands (mid-90s), such cases were very difficult to prosecute. Read the whole thing for the rather complex details.

(4) But Coakley’s worst performance by far came in connection with the Fells Acres day care child abuse case (please read the entire link to get a flavor of the situation). Gerald (“Tookie”) Amirault, along with his elderly mother and sister, had been convicted during the day care child sex abuse scare of the 80s. But he was widely known to be innocent by the time Coakley came on the scene as DA, and his mother and sister had been freed years before.

Gerald had received a unanimous recommendation from the parole board for his release. But in 2001 Coakley lobbied that he be kept in prison, and she was successful. As a result, an innocent man was kept behind bars for another three full years to add to the fifteen he had already served.

If you read the message and comment boards for articles about Coakley, you will note the rage that still exists among locals towards Coakley for her treatment of Gerald Amirault.

Why did she do it? After all, she had not been his original prosecutor, so she wasn’t protecting her own decisions. Most likely, she was determined to defend the actions of her predecessor Scott Harshbarger, as well as reputation of the DA’s office, and to shore up her own creds as tough on crime and child abusers. Unfortunately, for that object lesson Coakley ruthlessly and despicably picked a man known to be innocent.

If you take a look at the history of the Fells Acre case, I think the original prosecutors can probably be forgiven. In the climate of the times, the widespread idea was that children always tell the truth and cannot be unduly influenced by the sort of leading questions the therapists used when interviewing them in the Fells Acres case. Now that we know the opposite to be true—that very young children are highly suggestible in such situations—almost all jurisdictions have put into place restrictions on such methods, and have trained special forensic units to be in charge of the children’s interrogations.

But by the time Coakley was blocking Gerald Amirault’s clemency, all of this was known. Her decision reflected a cold-blooded, small-minded, self-centered devotion to her own advancement at the expense of an innocent man. Let’s hope it backfires on her ambitions now.