Even The Globies Aren’t Fooled By Martha’s Cheap Ploy
by Brian Maloney, December 16th, 2009 at 12:44pm
When you’re a Massachusetts Democratic Party nominee for the US Senate, it’s not easy to run afoul of the Boston Globe, a partisan newspaper of the first order. Glowing tributes, followed by the inevitable endorsement, can be expected without fail.
That’s why today’s editorial is especially damning: did Martha Coakley really believe her childish ploy wouldn’t be seen as transparent? Her sudden concern for including “all candidates” in upcoming debates means a phony “Kennedy” on the ballot would participate and shield cowardly Coakley from a real one-on-one showdown.
Yet a one-on-one debate would be a microcosm of the political environment awaiting the next US senator - an intensely partisan climate in which Democrats and Republicans are forever jockeying for advantage - and give voters a look at how Coakley and Brown would hold up in it.
Kennedy, a libertarian who isn’t related to the most famous family in Massachusetts politics, deserves a spot in some debates. It’s easy to see, though, why the third-party candidate’s presence at all debates would be so helpful to Coakley. For one thing, it would pit Brown against another candidate who might appeal to conservative voters.
Furthermore, multicandidate debates helped the attorney general in the Democratic primary race. As rivals Michael Capuano and Steve Pagliuca duked it out, Coakley stayed serenely above the fray - a posture that’s much harder to maintain with only one other opponent on the stage.
But WRKO’s Howie Carr believes Coakley’s making a strategic error for a different reason: it’s not wise to promote the fact that a “Kennedy” is on the ballot. From his column:
But Martha’s problem is, with a Kennedy on the ballot - any Kennedy - any damned thing can happen. Back in the 1950s, three times Massachusetts elected a treasurer named John F. Kennedy, the F being for Francis, not Fitzgerald. The other JFK probably could have gone on having it made, except he decided to run for governor in 1960, the same year the real guy was running for president.
The other JFK finished fifth. Two other John Kennedys ran for treasurer. They lost too. Three other John Kennedys ran for office that year too - two for state rep and one for Norfolk County treasurer. I think they lost too.
Back in 1986, Joe Kennedy - Joe P., not Joe L. - was running for Tip O’Neill’s seat. I knew a guy working the polls on primary day in Medford - Ed Markey’s congressional district. All day, the guy said, old ladies would go into the voting booths and then come out, waving their ballots.
“I came down here to vote for Kennedy,” they’d yell. “Why isn’t Joe Kennedy’s name on the ballot?”
In those days the electorate was befuddled by beer. Now, I would venture to guess, most of Martha Coakley’s potential voters are addled by powerful prescription meds. Does anyone seriously think the electorate is shrewder than it used to be?
Entry Filed under: Another Coakley Screw-up
4 Comments Add your own
1. Antenna10 | December 16th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I agree with Howie. There are A LOT of just plain dumb voters. A Kennedy on the ballot could confuse many of them and cost coakley. That’s why I’m always irritated at the many calls for every voter to go to the polls and do their “civic duty” on election day. That attempt to goad everyone, including the ignorant and appathetic, to try to remember where the polling place is and which candidate their friend said had a nice smile in his TV ad, is nuts. Let there be a defacto aristocracy of citizens who give a damn. Dan Rea was playing that guilt game on Primary day.
2. Larry | December 17th, 2009 at 8:22 am
A poll out today indicates that only 33% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the right direction. Coakley has called for more extreme policies that those that resulted in these low poll numbers. She has a real race on her hands, but she doesn’t know it. She’s gambling that there are enough moonbats and government dependent voters for her to win in this deteriorating economy. My prediction is that most Mass voters are fed up and will send a message with her defeat.
3. Piratetoby | December 17th, 2009 at 8:41 am
My prediction is that while MA voters might be fed up, they are still uninterersted in the campaign, and are too appathetic to get their fat asses out there and cast a vote. Coakley has a strong base - and they do and will get out and vote.
Now here’s a race worth mentioning- Wendy Murphy v Alec Beam. Who will be hired to breath some fresh air into TKK?
4. Dr. Quincy, M.E. | December 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Off-topic, but I think we’ve arrived at a “watershed” in Boston weekday afternoon talk since, 98.5’s Felger & Massarotti Show seems to be the best talk on the air during that time.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed