The Massachusetts special election continues to amaze. Democratic candidate Martha Coakley has taken a swipe at Fenway Park fans:
Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.
Well yes, politicians go out to meet the voters even if it means standing out in the cold. At least politicians who want to win in Massachusetts.
Here is the video of Scott Brown greeting fans outside Fenway Park at the Winter Classic hockey game (and being greeted by Boston comedy legend Lenny Clarke):
Coakley’s slap shot at Fenway fans was the talk of the popular local Howie Carr radio show in Boston today. Carr is a Brown supporter, and Coakley’s refusal to greet the fans outside Fenway was a focus of the show.
Maybe Coakley forgot how near and dear Fenway was to Ted Kennedy, who threw out the first pitch last season in what everyone knew would be his last opening day. Or the Tribute to Kennedy in August at Fenway.
Insulting Fenway fans. Now that’s a plan.
In order for Brown to win, a lot of things had to fall into place. Just saying.
Update: The Gail Collins takes note (emphasis mine):
Martha Coakley, the Democratic Senate nominee, is the kind of candidate who reminds you that the state that gave birth to John Kennedy also produced Michael Dukakis. She is the attorney general, and her speaking style has been compared to that of a prosecutor delivering a summation to the jury. In civil court. In a trial that involved, say, a dispute over widget tariffs.
She is so tone deaf that she made fun of her opponent for standing outside Fenway Park shaking hands “in the cold.” A week before the election, Coakley was off the campaign trail entirely in Washington for a fund-raiser that was packed with the usual suspects. But undoubtedly it was well heated.
And Kurt Schilling joins the battle (emphasis mine):
[H]as she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Coakley Glances at Her Watch – For Six Days
Martha Coakley’s Political House On Fire
“What’s Martha Afraid Of?”
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
She's obviously going for the coveted Yankee vote, forgetting the the ownership group of the Sox includes more than just a few liberals.
Or perhaps she is getting her sports briefings from John "Manny Ortiz" Kerry.
Joe Biden better watch out. Martha is trying to take the gaffmaster crown from him.
The question now is what is she going to do as an encore tomorrow?
Correction: Kerry said "Manny Ortez" – Hear the audio at http://www.LIVESHOT.cc
Can she be even more clueless? Do you see it, MA?
I once said that if Ted Kennedy truly was the "Lion of the U.S. Senate", then I couldn't wait to meet the hyenas.
If Coakley goes to the Senate… she will be the hyena.
What a dolt. Honestly, she's the worst candidate I've ever seen. I had a lot of respect for Senator Kennedy (even if I thought his ideology loopy and off the charts), and he'd be furious if he heard that comment. He always stopped and spoke to people, shook hands, no matter the weather or temperature . . . even when he wasn't campaigning! She's an utter disgrace to this commonwealth.
Thanks for your hard work and great blogging. I have been making lots of calls from home.
Does anyone know where I can find the absentee ballot information that Howie Carr has been mentioning every afternoon on his show? Is it online? I would love to look at that and know where to look for the up to date election data on election night.
Well done once again, conservatives — way to focus on what's really important. Handshakes! After all, a few months of gladhanding on the campaign trail (not to mention driving a truck — 200k miles!) makes a true public servant and an ideal future Senator.
Never mind the fact that Scott Brown is a dyed-in-the-wool party-line Republican: he is blind to the fact that the Bush-era policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and "enhanced interrogation techniques" have made us less wealthy in coffers AND the worldwide regard.
It is true that Coakley has come off as complacent, but she is not incompetent. As most GOP politicians have proven themselves, they are excellent at campaigning, politicking, and yes, getting elected. Actually doing their job once they're in office is quite another thing.
If Brown does get elected, what will he do? Continue the obstructionist agenda of his fellow Republicans, who cry partisanship while adding nothing constructive to the process.
The disintegration of true political discourse has long by-passed this campaign, and the issues seem deeply buried under fearmongering and partisanship. Brown's rose-colored view of Bush-era policies and his poor fitness for the serious job of the United States Senate will have been his undoing.
[i]*But man, he's got such a firm handshake. It was cold out that day at the winter classic, too! It's not like that was a highly-publicized event to piggy-back off of, now was it?[/i]
American Power tracked-back with, 'Michael Meehan, Coakley Campaign Staffer, Apologizes for Making Weekly Standard Reporter Stumble, or Something…'.
mfrech said…
It is true that Coakley has come off as complacent, but she is not incompetent.
Even the liberal Boston Globe couldn't avoid covering the her complacency… or is it incompetence?
Some saw Coakley as lax on ’05 rape case
AG defends steps in long process
By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff
January 6, 2010
In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.
Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.
But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.
It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.
Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/
One potentially mishandled case (according to "some") and you're crying incompetence? Coakley has a record of typically seeking harsh sentences for criminals.
Obviously this crime was heinous, but how does this negate a career of successfully prosecuting criminals, be it the high profile Louise Woodward and Amirault child abuse cases or exacting a wealth of fines from corporate violators.
So yes as I said before: it was complacency — not incompetence. The two have nothing to do with each other.
And how people commenting here can casually call Martha Coakley "an utter disgrace to the commonwealth" is beyond me. If you want to shout, shout — but comments like that don't move the discussion forward. Scott Brown has served his country honorably by means of both state legislature and his lengthy service in the national guard.
I do not malign his service in these capacities, but I do am not convinced of his qualifications for the job in question. Please give Coakley the respect she deserves as a long-serving, accomplished public servant.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That should be her new campaign slogan. Just sayin.
You gotta LUV idiots like Mfrech. He doesn't have a problem with Coakley running ads essentially accusing Brown of criminality and moral turpitude. BUT he bemoans the loss of civil political discourse AND attempts to tie Brown with Bush's supposed sins. Hey Mfrech: hows that Obama "smarter" foreign policy workin out for ya? When someone, us or the Israelis, has to go bomb Iran, will you put down your dulcimer and join the real world?
Lenny Clarke is a Brown fan? If so, that won't sit too well with his buddy Denis Leary, a dyed-in-the-wool Dem who thinks Obama is better than sliced bread.
Small things, seemingly incidental and even irrelevant provide a great deal of insight into the mind and heart of a candidate. John Edwards' "primping" on camera for minutes at a time is an example. There are many more, but you get the point.
I'm always amazed at how people put so much stock in what a candidate says, including how he/she (so called) "stands" on issues. Rehearsed statements are nearly worthless; they are just calculated to give certain impressions. First look at actions; next look at unrehearsed statements; and then look at whom (what interest groups, especially) the candidate is attached to ("follow the money") and how he/she has chosen to vote. These two things will at least get you in the neighborhood of truth about a person.
Mfrech, I said (and stand behind my statement that) Coakley is an utter disgrace to this commonwealth. This bash at the Sox fans is bad enough and shows that she is out of touch with this commonwealth and its people. It also shows more clearly than anything else so far (except maybe her blase attitude about the reporter being shoved to the ground and her resorting to negative attack ads) how very very different she is from Ted Kennedy. She's the one hammering him in this campaign, how she's doing it to continue his legacy. Well, Ted Kennedy ALWAYS stopped to shake hands and chat with people, he waved cheerfully from cars, and he took the time to listen to everyone. He was famous for it, and people loved him (guess that's why they kept voting for him). The thing is, he did this all year around, year after year. It didn't matter if it was an election year. Or "cold" out. Or at Fenway or in JP or Southie or wherever. She's just shown that SHE is the one not fit to take what they like to call "Kennedy's seat."
It's the people's seat, now more than ever before. GO SCOTT BROWN!!
mfrech thinks there is only one case where Coakley made a mistake.
My friend, there are SO MANY cases that Ms Coakley has screwed up, it would take all day to list them.
There are even more cases that Coakley just failed to take. Usually they involve the prosecution of politial bedfellows, like corrupt House Speaker Sal DiMasi. Coakely just ignored her duty as Attorney General, and never called for the case to be brough to trial.
So many cases like this.
The case that turns my stomach is the case of Father Geoghan. This was a KNOWN PEDOPHILE PRIEST. In order to save the church some embarrassment, Coakley cut a deal so that Geoghan got no punishment at all, and got no marks on his record, and was then ABLE TO KEEP RAPING CHILDREN FOR ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS before he was finally stopped.
Coakley enabled this scum to rape children in church basements for SEVEN YEARS.
It's a matter of FACT.
I call that a MAJOR LAPSE OF JUDGEMENT.
I do not want this woman to be in charge of ANYTHING. G-d help us if she helps formulate laws that tell you how to take care of your children. I don't trust her with that kind of power. Why do you?
Well, I guess I am an idiot! I guess it's really stupid to focus on handshaking and haircuts. Oh, and shoving. I forgot about that one. Let me ask you all a question – if Martha Coakley came by your street and wanted to shake your hand, would it change your mind about her policies or ideals or qualifications?
What kind of world is it where that is more significant than experience, record and judgement? Whoever wins this election is going to have an important job to do for at least 6 years, and you're talking about these petty issues and foibles on the campaign trail. Character is important, but Scott Brown could park his truck outside Fenway and shake hands until the rapture — it would not make him more qualified to be senator. Coakley has been toiling in courtooms, not campaign trails, for the bulk of her career: I tell you this – it is not important. I am certain that if she wins on Tuesday, she will undoubtedly have lots of hands to shake.
Coakley's "lockstep" ad was presented too negatively, but what was wrong with the content? Was it dishonest? It only reiterated what Brown has said he's done in the past and what he's going to do if elected. I think it might have come off a little too intense, but don't pretend that she's the only one doing negative ads in this race.
And I really love how all these conservatives have been coming out and claiming they know what Ted Kennedy would be thinking about this campaign, after undoubtedly spending decades complaining about the guy ("I have a lot of respect, (even if I thought his ideology was loopy and off the charts.)" What on earth could you possibly mean by that? You can't invoke the name of Kennedy if you've been on the opposite side of political aisle and are trying to elect a man that has vowed to derail Kennedy's life's work if he gets into office. That is just absurd.
I admit that Brown line about it being "the people's seat" is a really nice slogan, or soundbyte — and nice quick thinking by your man. And it is the people's seat. Do you really think anyone doesn't know that? Kennedy was like the 3rd longest sitting senator and it is an exceptional case and how everyone referred to it. I hope you all respect who the people elect to fill the people's seat, even if it isn't Scott Brown.
So go ahead and feel free to call me an dulcimer-carrying idiot that "You gotta LUV", (thanks for that, jelink, it does not change the fact that Scott Brown is unqualified. And no, jelink, I do not think you can bomb your way out of every possible foreign policy entanglement, that is most likely where you and I differ. Obama's foreign policy is working out fine with me so far — what would you have done differently, my friend? Do you really think the slight changes in his policies are going to lead to a nuclear Iran? Stop being so terrified of everything, won't you?
mfrech wildly asserts:
"Never mind the fact that Scott Brown is a dyed-in-the-wool party-line Republican: he is blind to the fact that the Bush-era policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and "enhanced interrogation techniques" have made us less wealthy in coffers AND the worldwide regard."
Anyone who confuses the national budget with the economy is so pitifully uninformed as to make their opinion on any other political issue of the day equally irrelevant.
Invoking Bush's name to make a point should be a Godwin's Law corollary.
Considering for a moment that the leadership of China, Iran, and Venezuela have all insulted, backhanded, and generally made a fool of Obama on the world stage while increasing their own power. I'd say the 'debutante' approach to foreign policy is a resounding failure so far.
I really couldn't get past that opening paragraph before being overwhelmed by reading such a juvenile worldview.
I trust her with that kind of power because (while like all public servants, she is not perfect) but she has been a strong prosecutor in the public interest.
Hindsight is 20-20 — do you think that not anticipating what turned out to be the worst case of priest child abuse in history is a lapse in judgement? Do you want her to be clairvoyant?
She was responsible eventually for bringing Geoghan to justice. I understand that this is not good enough for you, but she is working within a system. Would you rather Coakley found the prisoner that would later kill Geoghan in prison and let him deal with him right at the first suspicion of abuse, bypassing the legal system? Is that justice to you?
Who is confusing the economy with the budget? Bush ruined both. He was handed a budget surplus, only to squander it. He was handed an economy that was growing. How many jobs did he create, how much did he increase the GDP? We're not talking about Bush now, but if you're going to call me "pitifully uninformed", I have to ask.
There is no corollary between Godwin's Law and making Bush references. It makes perfect sense to invoke Bush when the candidate running from his party is running largely on a platform that supports Bush-era policies.
China Iran and Venezeula are not cuddling up to Obama, nor the other way around. That is obviously not what I said or meant. And do you think these countries only began to grow in power on Inauguration Day last year? These countries are irrelevant to the point I was making about allies. I'm talking about allies that we have had for centuries, suddenly backing away from us. The United States is strong and safe when we act as part of a community of developed nations.
And you think that China, Iran and Venezuela's disapproval is an indicator of a "debutante" approach to foreign policy? This is your yardstick? You're out of your mind, amigo.
Coakley's record as AG doe not inspire confidence:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31413.html
As for Scott Brown being an obstructionist — I certainly hope so! Getting absolutely nothing passed is hugely preferable to what is currently on the table.
Yep Teddy's seat……
If Teddy was so against Water Boarding, why did he put Mary Jo in his car.
Just think this would have been The Health Care plan Mary Jo would have had if she wasn't murdered!
Mfrech, brace yourself a wave of personal, ad hominem attacks beginning in 5..4..3..2..
Standard MO for the right-wing when they a losing an otherwise civil debate.
mfrech continues –
Who is confusing the economy with the budget?
That would be – you.
You see…when you say things like "tax cuts for the wealthy", you're talking about federal revenues gained from feceral income tax on the rich. When you suggest that this federal budget item is what has made "the rest of us" less wealthy, you're confusing the federal budget with the economy.
How much the government did or didn't soak the rich for had relatively squat to do with why the rest of us are less wealthy. That's as much as I'm going to spell out for you at this point because I don't think you could grasp what actually has made the rest of us less wealthy.
You go ahead and continue your Bush non sequiturs with impunity, I'd just like to thank you for writing posts that prove their worthlessness in the first couple of lines.
Saves me reading time.
gmmay – please elaborate, since clearly conservative principles have worked so well in the past: what am i missing? an imbecile like me could surely benefit — hell, maybe you'll convince me to vote for Scott Brown!
don't talk down to me under the pretense that you guys are standing on a record of economic success. you are ridiculous.
that was just a few lines — was it brief enough for you?
"Saves me reading time."
"gmmay" you're obviously blindly partisan, talking to people like yourself is a lost cause and waste of time from the get-go, duh.
But thanks from leaving your comfort zone, Fox News, WorldNetDaily, Newsmax long enough to share your thoughts.
MFrech, I meant that, to my mind, Ted Kennedy was far too progressive for my personal (and ideological) taste. I definitely have a lot of respect for him as I think he was sincere and principled; he didn't try to hide or lie about his progressive agenda, he worked with people on both sides of the aisle with mutual respect on both sides (can you imagine MC doing that?), and he didn't hold himself above the people. I respect these qualities on BOTH sides of the political aisle. It is, you know, possible to respect someone and not agree with their loopy ideas.
And it's not me, or we on the right, who keep dragging up Senator Kennedy; it's Martha herself. I'm simply pointing out that he was a friendly man who took an interest in his constituents. She clearly does not.
"that was just a few lines — was it brief enough for you?"
You could have done it in three words, mfrech and he'd still b*tch.
If it's not spoon-feed right-wing propaganda these people just aren't interested.
Not only that, you can express your opinion on ANY subject, the environment, civil-right etc and if you're not regurgitating GOP talking points, you would be met with the same rudeness and hostility.
Hostility and rudeness are just part of the right-wing mindset.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox
No wonder this people are losing young voters in droves.
http://i.imgur.com/Zh0yK.jpg
davemartin7777 said…
Mfrech, brace yourself a wave of personal, ad hominem attachs beginning in 5..4..3..2..
Standard MO for the right-wing when they a losing an otherwise civil debate.
davemartin7777said…
"Saves me reading time."
"gmmay" you're obviously blindly partisan, talking to people like yourself is a lost cause and waste of time from the get-go, duh.
But thanks from leaving your comfort zone, Fox News, WorldNetDaily, Newsmax long enough to share your thoughts.
—————————————
Pot…kettle…anyone?
Just an outsider peeking in on the commentary. Looks like some typical name calling and self-righteousness from both sides. Out here, Coakley looks like a 'machine' politician, desperate to win what she thought was a shoo-in election that has turned out to be a real race. Those who attempt to defend her by denigrating Brown's qualifications should look at how well the 'not qualified' approach worked for those who opposed Obama. Brown looks like an erstwhile State legislator looking to take a step up. His handshaking at Fenway infers he knows who he works for…the people.
mfrech – Yes, that was brief enough. Your partisan hackery wasn't as overbearing as before and you're not spouting off complete nonsense this time. Before I explain the cause behind the economic collapse (which was NOT based on conservative principles, by the way), perhaps you can explain your assertion of how you think a lower income tax rate on the rich is the fundamental root of why the rest of us have lost wealth. I'll give you the first chance to enlighten me.
To Davemartin7777 –
I suggest you review the definition of "partisan", because you're clearly not only misusing it, but guilty of it yourself. I challenge you to find one example of me injecting "blind" partisanship. Go ahead and prove that I watch FOX or read WND. You will find neither and in trying to do so you will prove only yourself the blind partisan.
Should be fun to watch.
Apologies for the post above, I mistook Davemartin7777 for Dan, however the response is applicable to both.
But for Dave in posting some hilarity, try not to point fingers with pseudo-intellectual, partisan nonsense, i.e:
"Hostility and rudeness are just part of the right-wing mindset.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox
No wonder this people are losing young voters in droves.
http://i.imgur.com/Zh0yK.jpg"
This "my side is better than your side, ZOMGZ U GUYS R SUCH PARTISANZ HACKZORZ" argument is a great indicator of why, thankfully the electorate isn't limited to the 18-29 y/o demographic.
Looks like the "pathos" and sophomoric isn't just limited to all those eeeevil conservative haters!
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Look, I just accomplished more partisan drivel in one post than you did in two.
You guys are a hoot.
This life-long Red Sox fan will never vote for that idiot Coakley, Oh and by the way Brown is not a party-line republican, he pro-choice and voted for Romney-care, I'm a democrat but I can't seeing me pulling the lever for Coakley
There are many reasons why clear-thinking Americans should not vote for Coakley. The main reasons are her unprincipled behaviour as a District Attorney and again as the Attorney General in a series of cases.
I am Catholic and nothing hurts more than hearing about priests who have gone against their vows to have indulged in child molestation like the case of Fr. Geoghan. Letting him off that first time was NOT saving the Catholic Church embarrassment. It harmed the Church more than anything else, because he went back and committed more crimes. Enough said… the damage has been done to the good reputation of other priests, especially those who did not know how best to handle the situation in the first place.
The most sickening is the fact that she failed to prosecute the man who molested a 2 year old child with a curling iron. On top of the failures involved caused by her inaction, there were the accusations made against the family's lawyer, when in fact she was the one who was doing it all for her own political advancement. She has even gone as far as trying to lay blame at the feet of the child's mother… good one Martha.
Then there is the case of Gerald Armilault. Even though she did not prosecute a case that should never have been brought to trial in the first place, she was the one who kept an innocent man in prison for a further two years when the parole board requested that he be pardoned…. good one Martha… what happened to the word called justice?
It is not just her record as a prosecutor that needs some thought. It is also the fact that she is a bare faced liar – see story about reporter who was pushed and roughed up by one of her minions and her campaign lies.
Her haughtiness and her belief that she was to be heir apparent in the Senate should also be sending out the red flags.
This dame does not belong in the Senate. She has the same kind of sleazy background as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.