Well, I'll be damned. I was wrong.
Yesterday, I predicted that today the Boston Globe would mount a last-minute effort to drag their wretched excuse for a candidate, Bay State Attorney General Martha Coakley, across the finish line and toss a bomb at Republican insurgent Scott Brown. It would entirely be within their character to thow a last-minute smear at Brown just before the election, in hopes of dirtying him enough to prevent his scoring a huge upset.
But they didn't.
I scoured the Glob's web site for some kind of attack on Brown, but came up empty. (I haven't paid for a copy of the Glob in years, and I ain't about to start now.)
However, I did find a column that speaks volumes about what the Globe is thinking.
Joan Vennochi says "Blame Beacon Hill."
Who's responsible for Martha Coakley's likely defeat next Tuesday? Why, it's the Democratic political machine's fault. They've grown too complacent over the years, and didn't work hard enough to keep "Ted Kennedy's seat." They've gotten too corrupt, and tone-deaf to the public's disgust with the endless stream of leading Democrats being hauled off in handcuffs. They've gotten too complacent, flouting the will of the people and endlessly raising taxes and fees and gouging the taxpayers at every opportunity.
It's a valid theory, but it is far more enlightening in what it doesn't say.
And what is not said is that Martha Coakley has been a part of the Beacon Hill power structure (or, at least, an eager wannabe) for years.
Remember that cop who raped a 23-month-old girl with a curling iron? The one who Coakley did her damnedest to keep quiet as long as it could? It turns out that the rapist's father was a big Democratic fundraiser and one of Coakley's biggest donors. (The rapist himself is currently serving life in prison.)
Remember all those politicians brought down low by the law? Including two Speakers convicted of felonies, and a third currently awaiting trial? Or the Boston pols (City Councilor and State Senator) caught on camera taking bribes? Not one of those corrupt scumbags was brought to justice by Martha Coakley or her office. No, it took federal officials to clean the house that she nominally ran.
Coakley's entire campaign was based on one single premise: that she was the Democratic nominee, and as such was entitled to Ted Kennedy's seat -- a seat that had been held by John F. Kennedy from 1953 to 1960, then held by a family loyalist until Ted Kennedy was old enough to serve in the Senate. Appropriately enough, after Ted's passing, another family loyalist (Paul Kirk) was appointed to "keep the seat warm" until another Democrat could be elected.
Coakley didn't take into account four factors: just how bad her record was, how quickly it would be exposed, just how bad a campaigner she was, and just how good a campaigner Scott Brown was.
None of these should have come as a surprise to anyone. But there were so many other factors in this race that picking out those four as the ones that would have the greatest effect on the race was exceptionally difficult.
On Tuesday, we'll see just how important those factors have been, when the only real poll that matters is held. But it's clear which way the Boston Globe thinks it will play out.
I find myself torn. On the one hand, I hope someone on Morrissey Boulevard hides all sharp and rope-like objects Tuesday night.
On the other hand, I'm thinking of sending a "care package" down there with plenty of clothesline and razor blades.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Mass. Insanity
Comments (19)
This towel throwing didn't ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by epador | January 17, 2010 11:10 AM | Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
This towel throwing didn't happen to coincide with BO coming to town, did it?
1. Posted by epador | January 17, 2010 11:10 AM |
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 11:10
2. Posted by Eirik | January 17, 2010 11:18 AM | Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
He hasn't won yet. The only poll that actually matters is on Tuesday.
2. Posted by Eirik | January 17, 2010 11:18 AM |
Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 11:18
3. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Score: 14 (14 votes cast)
#2 -
Yeah. It isn't over until the dems count all the ballots from the dead, convicted felons and illegal aliens.
3. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 11:42 AM |
Score: 14 (14 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 11:42
4. Posted by GarandFan | January 17, 2010 11:47 AM | Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Don't give up on the Globe yet. There's still Monday's edition.
Yeah, hard to believe the Globe, part of the "intellectual ruling elite" is blaming....the "intellectual ruling elite". After all, the Globe is the Northeast DNC mouthpiece.
4. Posted by GarandFan | January 17, 2010 11:47 AM |
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 11:47
5. Posted by Flu-Bird | January 17, 2010 11:56 AM | Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
The BOSTON SLOB is losing readers just like the NEW YORK SLIMES,WASHINGTON COMPOST,ATLANTA URINAL/CONSTIPATION
5. Posted by Flu-Bird | January 17, 2010 11:56 AM |
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 11:56
6. Posted by Dr Carlo Lombardi | January 17, 2010 12:20 PM | Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
They still have a day and a half to throw out a bogus 'scandal' or controversy at Brown.The less time to respond , the better.
6. Posted by Dr Carlo Lombardi | January 17, 2010 12:20 PM |
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 12:20
7. Posted by bobdog | January 17, 2010 12:33 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
(I tried to post this half an hour ago, but the blog machine apparently found something in it that was suspect. My post is in purgatory until somebody at Wizbang does some housecleaning.)
Here you go, Carlo. The Washington Examiner today released a story linking Brown to a 1982(!) Cosmopolitan beefcake photo, which of course it reprinted. Right on schedule.
I won't repost the link, because that's what tripped the alarms, but I saw the story at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler http://www.nicedoggie.net. Scroll down until you find the story titled "Now This Is The Way To Heat Up A Campaign".
I'm certain that the Coakley campaign is shocked! SHOCKED I tell you! to see such revelations and had absolutely no knowledge of the story before it appeared.
Coakley still has a chance, if she can convince Obama to stay the heck out of Boston today. His White Knight appearances don't have a good track record.
7. Posted by bobdog | January 17, 2010 12:33 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 12:33
8. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 12:46 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
What's the Coakley campaign thinking?!
"Let's release a photo that shows Brown as cool, good looking and we can make him look more like a regular guy by doing so. People wouldn't want to vote for someone like that."
Or perhaps Martha thinks that being attractive and popular is a big negative?
Next they will come out with shocking photos showing that Brown was prom king and student body president. Or maybe they can catch him making secret cash payments to a charity for the homeless.
8. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 12:46 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 12:46
9. Posted by f1guyus | January 17, 2010 1:10 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Tomorrow, tomorrow, there's always tomorrow.
9. Posted by f1guyus | January 17, 2010 1:10 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 13:10
10. Posted by Eric | January 17, 2010 1:15 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Long term prediction if Brown wins Tuesday,
McDonnell/Brown 2012
10. Posted by Eric | January 17, 2010 1:15 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 13:15
11. Posted by Patrick | January 17, 2010 1:25 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
On the other hand, I'm thinking of sending a "care package" down there with plenty of clothesline and razor blades.
Better ID yourself, lest they think it's from one of their supporters, the abortion doctors.
11. Posted by Patrick | January 17, 2010 1:25 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 13:25
12. Posted by epador | January 17, 2010 2:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I saw the Cosmo piece and it will buy him male and female votes in MA.
These things come in threes, I can't wait to see the third (unless Obama counts as the third).
12. Posted by epador | January 17, 2010 2:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 14:15
13. Posted by bryanD | January 17, 2010 2:16 PM | Score: -10 (12 votes cast)
"Well, I'll be damned. I was wrong."-jt
1) Since the end of the newspaper wars, publishers are less prone to jump the shark for the sake of whatever political machine's ghost is still pretending to haunt the hallowed halls.
2)There are maverick examples of clear sockpuppetry puffed from the suites in code red cases today. I think you will find that the Right takes, and has historically taken, precedence in the practice. Hearts Papers v. Pulitzer (R VS.R). Of course, the old Chicago Tribune, Chandlers' LA Times, NY Herald, etc, etc, etc.
I know. TV versus the Vietnam War. OK.
But since then, beginning especially during Reagan's ghostly 2nd Term, old ex-Communists of the old Popular Front became less "democrat" and more "Republican" and made themselves available for small pay in government. Eventually, these folks became self-proclaimed "conservative watchdogs" and were given positions or outright subsidized in papers and periodicals. Enter "culture war II" based less on doctine and more on pop culture and popular perception-building concerning "correct" thinking in even trivial matters.
13. Posted by bryanD | January 17, 2010 2:16 PM |
Score: -10 (12 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 14:16
14. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
BryanD -
Thanks for the comedic interlude. Perhaps you should consider knowing something about what you are saying before you post. However, since that has never stopped you before I suggest you visit over at Paterico's place and Look at the archives of how the LA Times has carried the Dems water year after year. There are many other examples.
You're an ass if you think any paper has a rightward slant. Even the most conservative editorial board often is not reflected in the rest of the paper because the news staff is separate and has a different viewpoint politically.
Half my family are journalists. You have no idea what you are talking about.
14. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 2:53 PM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 14:53
15. Posted by Jay Guevara | January 17, 2010 3:07 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Amazingly stupid comment. Your streak is unbroken.
Which papers carried water for Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, and flayed Richard Nixon for his role in the former case?
Ans.: the New York Times and Washington Post.
15. Posted by Jay Guevara | January 17, 2010 3:07 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 15:07
16. Posted by Michael | January 17, 2010 3:22 PM | Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
BryanD is definitely a ass.
16. Posted by Michael | January 17, 2010 3:22 PM |
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 15:22
17. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 4:05 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Jay,
I especially liked how the NYT got a Pulitzer for their hard hitting coverage of the famine in the Ukraine.
Oh wait. They got the prize for printing stories that covered it up. My mistake.
17. Posted by jim m | January 17, 2010 4:05 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 16:05
18. Posted by 914 | January 17, 2010 5:21 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Remember folks, there's got to be at least 50 ACORN car trunk's with Mary Mape's contrived ballot's on standby in the event Croakley coke's..Or rather Cokely croak's.. Will be interesting to watch the twists and turn's of the leftist cheats.
18. Posted by 914 | January 17, 2010 5:21 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 17:21
19. Posted by bryanD | January 17, 2010 6:44 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
"Which papers carried water for Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, and flayed Richard Nixon for his role in the former case?"-jay guevera
The NYT has supported every American warhawk policy. The undeclared wars from Korea to the Iraq invasion have been puffed by the NYT. Does Judith Miller ring a bell?
As for Vietnam, scoops aside (Hersch, etc), the day-in, day-out reportage was elitist and pro-war. Only kicking and screaming (afraid of a competitor's "scoop" (see Hersch)) has the NYT not parroted the positions and arguments of the Powers That Be.
Since WaPo was mentioned: known worldwide as an organ of the US intelligence community. Bob Woodward (Naval Intelligence) promulgated the alternative history of Watergate centered strictly around Republican "operatives" versus Democrats while DOWNPLAYING-IN-EXTREMIS the rogues' gallery of ex-pat Cubans and their CIA "handlers'" (E.Howard Hunt) whose history can be straight-lined to the "moderate-liberal" JFK's assassination by the CIA and the Big Oil triumvirate in Texas.
"I especially liked how the NYT got a Pulitzer for their hard hitting coverage of the famine in the Ukraine.
Oh wait. They got the prize for printing stories that covered it up. My mistake."
17. Posted by jim m
Great example. Duranty. Who was neither Left not Right, specifically, but was beholden to American corporate interests in the rush to infiltrate (with Stalin's blessing) the capital opportunities servicing the Soviet state. The pencil concession was big on the agenda at the time. I'm not kidding. Harriman was obsessed.
Now, Harriman: center-left? Center-right in today's language, but beyond that: $$$. That's key. The right-left paradigm is bunk.
I always recommend "The Best and The Brightest" by Halberstam. Immaculate scholarship renders Left & Right speechless and embarrassed for being so (previously!) stupid over pet peeves and causes.
19. Posted by bryanD | January 17, 2010 6:44 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 17, 2010 18:44