Tag Archives: Senate Race

Coakley advisor blames Obama’s taxing and spending for loss

Story from the center-left Politico.


The Coakley adviser’s memo: National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late

[…]— From the beginning, Brown labeled President Obama’s health care and cap and trade plans as tax increases. Polling throughout the race showed this to be the most effective attack on Coakley.

There were other policies that hurt Coakley, but this was the most effective.

More here from Gateway Pundit.

Awesome. Just awesome.

MSNBC TV host calls on MA voters to vote many times to elect Coakley

Michelle Malkin posted this audio. (H/T Andrew)

This is what he says:

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I’d try to vote ten times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right, I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.

This is the superior morality of the compassionate, tolerant secular left.

For more on voter fraud, you can read about ACORN, the group that Obama once represented in court.

Martha Coakley’s convictions

Just one last shot at explaining who Martha Coakley really is, this time with an article from the Wall Street Journal.

Basically, a bunch of children gave testimony that the Amirault family abused and sexually assaulted children at a highly-regarded day care that they ran. But there was never any evidence of any crime, just the testimony of children.

Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.

Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time “a model, multidisciplinary prosecution.” Gerald’s wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.

Eventually, the convictions for the women were reversed, but the man remained a prisoner. Then Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999. And here is what she did.

In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl’s case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.

No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of “a primary male offender.” According to Ms. Coakley’s scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.

Before agreeing to revise Cheryl’s sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults’ attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.

Eventually Gerald was also released following a 5-0 parole board ruling. But Martha Coakley was not finished.

District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board’s ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.

On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald’s commutation.

Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to “take responsibility” by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment.

So, even if the facts are not there, a message needs to be sent to men that they are filthy perverts and need to be kept clear of children. And if an innocent man has to go to prison to “prove” the anti-male prejudices of radical feminists to the watching world, then so be it.

Do Democrats like Martha Coakley believe in religious liberty?

Check out this story from the Boston Herald.


Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. Ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No, we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

At another point in the interview she says, “if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade, that they can individually decide to not follow the law, the answer is no.”

Listen to the audio clip:

The full interview is here on Ken Pittman’s site.

I find her willingness to squash the religious beliefs of individuals with her secular leftist support for abortion very disturbing. Why should she have the right to force her anti-Christian view on me? And why does she label herself as a Roman Catholic? She trying to use the power of the state to force pro-lifers to commit murder. How is that consistent with Roman Catholicism? (Or evangelical Protestant Christianity?)

Assessing Martha Coakley’s fitness for the MA Senate seat

Consider this disturbing article from CNN. (H/T ECM)


Democrat Martha Coakley dodged a pointed question Tuesday about her claim during a Massachusetts Senate debate the night before that terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan.

During Monday’s debate with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley questioned why the United States still has troops in Afghanistan. She claimed that the al Qaeda terrorists who were originally targeted by American military action have migrated elsewhere, rendering the mission moot. “They’re gone,” she said. “They’re not there anymore. They’re in, apparently Yemen, they’re in Pakistan.”

A reporter asked Coakley about that claim after a Capitol Hill fundraiser on Tuesday. “Do you stand by that remark?” he asked.

Coakely, standing before a small cluster of reporters and cameras, listened to the question, then quickly looked in a different direction.

“I’m sorry,” she said. “Did anybody else have a question?”

This is not the way that you deal with criticism and honest questions from reporters. It’s very dismissive of opposing views on a matter of tremendous importance to our national security. The right thing to do is apologize and admit you made a mistake, then move on to the next question.

Now consider another story from Politico.


Last year, Coakley chose to personally argue her state’s case before the Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Despite the recent headlines detailing forensic mishaps, fraudulent testimony and crime lab incompetence, Coakley argued that requiring crime lab technicians to be present at trial for questioning by defense attorneys would place too large a burden on prosecutors.

Coakley has made her reputation as a law-and-order prosecutor. More troubling, she’s shown a tendency to aggressively push the limits of the law in high-profile cases and an unwillingness to cop to mistakes — be they her own or those of other prosecutors.

[…]In the 1980s, Violet Amirault and her children, Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave, were convicted of sexually abusing several children at their day care facility. The cases came at the height of the 1980s sex abuse panic, leading to false convictions across the country based on improper questioning of children, mass hysteria about sex abuse and Satan worship, and bogus “recovered-memory” psychotherapy. Coakley didn’t prosecute the Amiraults; her former boss Scott Harshbarger did. But the case against the family began to come apart during her tenure as district attorney. Despite a parole board’s 5-0 recommendation to grant Gerald Amirault clemency and mounting doubts about the evidence against him, Coakley publicly and aggressively lobbied then-Gov. Jane Swift to deny Amirault relief. Amirault remained in prison.

She seems to be incapable of admitting to anything that might put her in a bad light. She is so desperate to push an image, that she thinks that it is a waste of her time to listen to people who question her. This denial of reality and lack of humility seems to me to make her a bad choice for the Senate seat.

Doug Flutie endorses Scott Brown

In other news:

Interesting. I’m sure my Canadian readers will all recognize the greatest player to ever play in the Canadian Football League.

Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley by one point in MA Senate race

Story here on the American Spectator. (H/T ECM)


The much-anticipated Public Policy Polling survey shows Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 48 percent to 47 percent in the Massachusetts special election campaign to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Republicans are more enthusiastic about turning out than Democrats by 66 percent to 48 percent; Brown leads among independents by 63 percent to 31 percent; Brown’s favorability among unaffiliated voters is 70 percent. Independents oppose the Democratic health care plan 59 percent to 27 percent. Brown has a net favorable rating of 32 points.

The full poll results are here (pdf).