Snark-Infested Waters by Mike Bailey

Snark-Infested Waters by Mike Bailey

Subscribe  |  Share    |  Print

Follow me on Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘Scott Brown’

The week in politics

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

And the winner is…State Senator Scott P. Brown (R- Wrentham)!

And I gotta tell you, I’m not surprised to be writing this. Martha Coakley made some disastrous missteps in the later weeks of the campaign: tossing out the first harshly negative TV ad; passing on local campaigning to attend functions in DC; and bringing in the President, which absolutely smacked of desperation, just to name a few.

In short, this was Martha Coakley’s race to lose, and she did, spectacularly. Her complacency and garden-variety weak campaigning cost her what I think was, very early on, a sure-fire victory.

Whether Sen. Brown now lives up to his promises to be an independent voice in the US Senate is the big question now, but if he proves just another party loyalist, expect the Dems to make a major push to reclaim the seat in 2012.

Meanwhile, the immediate repercussions of Coakley’s loss could be significant. For a Republican to defeat a Democrat to claim the late Ted Kenney’s seat in Blue State Massachusetts could serve as a HUGE rallying cry for the GOP in the coming regular election cycle, and we could see a major party resurgence this year after several years of foundering.

Was Senator-elect Brown’s victory a mandate by the voters? Debatable; a five percent margin of victory in and of itself is hardly a mandate, but considering the surrounding circumstances, it’s clear voters were sending a message.

Was that message in essence a repudiation of the Obama Administration? Hardly; one man does not a repudiation make, and I’m sorry, while Obama hasn’t been as aggressive in making his much-ballyhooed changes as he said he’d be, it’s unrealistic to expect eight years of damage by the Bush Administration to be magically fixed in a year.

Nevertheless, every Massachusetts Democrat now has a target on their backs, and it should be interesting to see who goes gunning for whom.

As for Coakley herself, her post as Massachusetts Attorney General is now very vulnerable. Her blood is in the water, and the GOP would be remiss not to capitalize on it.

Look for detailed coverage of the special election elsewhere in this section, and in the front section of the Enterprise for town-by-town results.

***

As if on cue: we have a possible race for a local legislative seat!

Last week David T. Vieira of Falmouth said he was considering running against State Representative Matthew C. Patrick (D – Falmouth) this year. Mr. Vieira, who oversees the Cape’s Triad programs through the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Department and is finishing his 10th year as Falmouth’s town moderator, has filed his paperwork Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance and expects to make a final decision on his candidacy soon.

I’m hopeful he’ll go for it. I expect Mr. Vieira would run a solid campaign against Rep. Patrick, now in his fifth term, and a robust campaign is always a good thing (particularly for voters, who would actually have to give some serious thought about who to vote for).

If he runs, Mr. Vieira would be the third Republican to challenge a Democratic incumbent in the Cape delegation; folks have already popped up to challenge State Representatives Cleon H. Turner (D – Dennis) and Sarah K. Peake (D – Provincetown).

I want to see the trend continue, until we have a chock-a-block full ballot. That said, I don’t expect anyone to announce a run against Senate President Therese Murray (D – Plymouth). She has some crazy cash in her war chest – she ended 2008 with more than $150,000 – and from a strategic standpoint, losing her would greatly diminish the region’s clout in the State House, and the Cape and Islands cannot afford that (literally or figuratively).

Who is the most vulnerable to the GOP? That would be State Representative Timothy R. Madden (D – Nantucket). First-term legislators are generally good targets because it’s easy to claim they haven’t done anything of substance. While this is technically true – precious few freshman lawmakers get anything huge accomplished in their first outing – it’s also a bit disingenuous for the same reason.

***

Now that the US Senate special election has wrapped, expect the race for governor of Massachusetts to take center stage as The Big Race. There are five people in the mix right now: incumbent Deval L. Patrick; Timothy P. Cahill, the state treasurer, who is running as an independent; and Republicans Christy P. Mihos and Charlie D. Baker Jr.

Number five is Jill E. Stein of the Green-Rainbow Party, who announced her candidacy earlier this month. Dr. Stein ran for secretary of the Commonwealth in 2006 and for governor in 2002 (and got trounced in both races).

While Mr. Mihos has been a bit more active than his Republican rival in the early days of the campaign, it looks like Mr. Baker has been quietly building a well-financed support base. The Boston Herald reported last week that Smilin’ Charlie Baker raised $1.85 million in the last five months of 2009—twice the amount Gov. Patrick raised over the course of the entire year.

If Mr. Baker can put some substance behind the spending and put in some solid work into getting his name and message out to voters, he could be the man to beat in the primary and—dare I say it?—in the general election. Despite its widespread Blueness, Massachusetts has never been hesitant to put a Republican in the Corner Office; 20 of the state’s 34 governors since 1900 have been Republicans.

However, a recent poll by the Boston Globe suggests that neither GOP hopeful will prevail in a three-way race against Gov. Patrick and Mr. Cahill. About a third of those surveyed currently back the incumbent, despite his low approval ratings, with Mr. Cahill coming in second. Regardless of who represented the GOP, that man came in third.

I can’t take this poll seriously, not this early in the process. If this had come out, say, in October, I’d say the Republicans are in deep trouble, but a lot can change over the next 10 months.

***

Speaking of our treasurer (part the first), a fellow by the name of Brian J. Herr has filed his paperwork with the OCPF as a candidate for state treasurer. Mr. Herr, a Republican, is currently a selectman in the town of Hopkinton. He was elected to that post in 2007 and this year is the board’s chairman.

He joins Democratic candidate Steve Grossman.

***

Speaking of our treasurer (part the second), Mr. Cahill has chosen his running mate: former state representative Paul Loscocco. “As a former Republican, Loscocco makes the ticket truly bipartisan and independent, helping the campaign represent the 51 percent of Massachusetts voters who are not affiliated with either major political party,” read a press release from Cahill’s camp.

***

So with AG Coakley not going anywhere, where does that leave Democrat William Keating, Norfolk County district attorney and a former state senator? The man who threw the state Senate in a tizzy back in 1994 when he challenged William M. Bulger for the Senate presidency he’d held for 15 years announced his candidacy recently, but will that change with Coakley potentially staying put?

His campaign website is up at www.billkeating.org.

***

Over in the surprisingly active race for state auditor – five candidates so far! – Republican Earle Stroll has launched his campaign website at http://stroll2010.com, and Democrat Michael E. Lake has his site up at www.electmikelake.com.

Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net

For more political commentary, visit Michael’s blog “Snark-Infested Waters” at http://capenews.net/blogs/snark-infested_waters/

Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

The morning news has been punishing today. More precisely, the advertisements in-between segments of the morning news have been punishing, because every other commercial has been for Scott Brown or Martha Coakley, and I think both sides are running nothing but their slate of negative ads.

Thank you both for souring me on this election.

I was soured on Brown from almost day one, because — as a recipient of his campaign e-mails — I’ve seen nothing from him but condemnations of everything Coakley said or did throughout this process (“Martha Coakley drinks Pepsi Throwback, deprives the high-fructose corn syrup industry of vital revenue!”), followed by very superficial retorts meant to extol Brown’s virtues (“Scott Brown will support high-fructose corn syrup by drinking one bottle of Karo every day”).

His denouncement of Coakley’s negative ads are, in this light, hypocritical, but I have to agree: they’re low-road politics and are distracting voters. That Coakley ran negative at all, much less launched the first high-profile volley, is hugely disappointing and, as WHDH-TV’s Andy Hiller observed, not something a candidate with any confidence in her campaign would do.

This always has been Coakley’s race to lose, and she may well lose it. Eschewing on-the-street meet-and-greets with Massachusetts voters to go to out-of-state events? Jeez, Coakley, who are you? Mitt Romney? Running negative instead of pushing hard your considerably positive record as AG? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Should Brown win Tuesday, well, first I’m going to bang my head against a wall to dull the pain of seeing Coakley blow the election, then I’ll start looking for candidacy announcements from people looking to boot Coakley out of the AG’s office (because if she loses Tuesday, the GOP is going to just see blood in the water). Then I’m going to hope all this talk about intentionally dragging out the certification process to delay Brown’s entry into office is just that — talk — because I don’t know if I could calmly handle with any degree of aplomb the second most flagrant flouting of good public process since Massachusetts changed the Senate succession laws to allow Deval Patrick to plop Paul Kirk in Kennedy’s seat. If Brown wins, then he wins. Seat him.

Otherwise, everyone involved with such an affront to the political process will be facing voter wrath come November.

The week in politics – special editior director’s cut

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Happy New Year, everyone!

Normally I would only now be welcoming everyone to the triumphant return of my weekly political column, but thanks to the US Senate special election this puppy has been rolling for a few months now. Yet, in about two and a half weeks that election will be over and, hopefully, the state and local races will start to pick up.

And this year stands to be fairly active as all our constitutional officers – governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of the Commonwealth, attorney general, treasurer, and auditor – are up for re-election along with all state legislators. More locally, the positions of Barnstable County sheriff and Cape & Islands district attorney are up for grabs, along with one seat on the Barnstable County Board of County Commissioners. (more…)

A message from Snark-Infested Waters

Saturday, December 12th, 2009

n1216831914_30234121_7909

Joking (somewhat) aside, I’ve been inspired to go OLD old-school with my holiday greeting this year in response to the latest surge of people pushing “Merry Christmas” is THE only acceptable greeting.

This morning I read a piece by Howie Carr — a man who embodies Jesus in his unconditional tolerance and acceptance of all people — encouraging State Senator Scott Brown (R – Wrentham) to use “Merry Christmas” relentlessly in order to draw some quick and easy attention from the media (and ire from liberal “moonbats,” because they universally hate Christmas). I also read a piece extolling the “historical” attachments of the birth of Christ to Christmas (as detailed in that most respected of historical texts, the New Testament).

If we’re going to embrace the “true origins” of Christmas, then Jesus has to move over and make room, because Christmas owes a lot to pagan celebrations that pre-date his birth. The Christmas tree, for example, itself finds its origins in the Roman practice of bringing an evergreen plants into the home as part of the winter solstice celebration.

It’s also been hotly debated that early Christians, seeking to eradicate pagan faiths, reoriented Christmas and other key celebrations to coincide with pagan holy days in order to make assimilation of the godless heathens easier.

So, in summary: Jesus is not THE reason for the season; it’s A reason for the season, so Christians: ease up a bit, huh?

And before you start whining about the “war on Christmas” and society’s alleged efforts to eradicate all Christian elements of the holiday, take a moment to consider the irony.

Happy Yul(e)!

The week in politics

Friday, December 11th, 2009

I’ve gone into detail elsewhere in this section, but in case you’re the type who jumps right to this column so you can groove to my wit and wisdom, Attorney General Martha Coakley and State Senator Scott P. Brown (R – Wrentham) won Tuesday’s primary race and will now face off in the January 19 special election for the seat previous held by the late US Senator Edward W. Kennedy.

As a wise parrot once said, I could have a heart attack and die from not surprise over the results.

Now, to address pieces of business old and new. The old business: after last week’s issue I heard from a few people who wondered why Stephen G. Pagliuca and Alan A. Khazei got the full interview treatment while everyone else got mini-profiles.

It’s very simple: if they bothered to return my phone calls and made time for me, they got interviewed; if they blew me off, they didn’t.

The exception to this rule is Sen. Brown. By mutual agreement we’d planned to get together after the primary election since, at the time, he was the only Republican running — then Jack E. Robinson popped up at the 11th hour. After speaking with him about this, he said he was cool following our original game plan and we will be getting together soon.

Presumptuous, you say? In principle, yes, but it’s hard to hold it against him in light of his opponent; Robinson simply was not a viable candidate, especially when he appears in the race at the 11th hour and apparently goes out of his way not to make himself especially visible.

Or maybe Sen. Brown has a low-grade precognitive ability and predicted Robinson’s defeat, along with AG Coakley’s win; the day before the election, Sen. Brown issued a press release challenging the Democratic candidate to “tell the special interests to stay out of the Massachusetts special election.”

Sen. Brown was referring specifically to a $214,000 radio ad campaign funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in support of AG Coakley.

“It reinforces the perception that she is the candidate of the status quo who will protect big government spending programs at the expense of taxpayers,” Sen. Brown said in a press release. “Martha Coakley needs to tell the big government unions to stop trying to buy this election. This election can’t be bought and we should let the people decide without any outside interference. We should be looking out for the people’s interests and not the special interests.”

Uh, Sen. Brown? Question over here. The SEIU represents (as per their website): “nurses, LPNs, doctors, lab technicians, nursing home workers, home care workers…local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers…workers who protect and clean commercial and residential office buildings, and…private security officers and public safety personnel.”

Are you saying the SEIU is a big government union – slash – special interest and not looking out for “people’s interests”? They seem pretty people-interest-oriented to me. Just sayin’.

Follow-up question: will you be returning the $1,000 donation from the United Services Automobile Association Employee PAC, which represents employees of the USAA, which provides insurance and financial services to military personnel? Or the $4,500 from Mitt Romney’s “Free and Strong America PAC,” which supports candidates who conform to an arch-conservative platform? Or are those not big government unions and/or special interests?

And what about the PAC money you received in your 2008 state senatorial campaign? Will you be returning any donations from the PACs representing Bank of America, the Mass. Credit Union League, the FMR LLC (Fidelity), MA Correction Officers Federated Union, the MBTA Police Association, the Association of Builders and Contractors, the Fraternal Order of Police, Insurance Agents and Brokers of Massachusetts, the Mass. Association of Realtors, the Mass. Hospital Association…

Again: just sayin’.

(FYI: the above lists provided courtesy of, respectively, the Federal Election Commission and the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.)

Now, I’m not trying to insinuate that AG Coakey’s campaign is free of PAC influence because it sure ain’t – 27 PAC donations and counting! – but if Sen. Brown is going to play the “refuse special interests money” card, he should play by the same rules.

Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net

The primary post-mortem

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

One election no one really cares about down, one to go.

Yeah, I know it’s a primary election held at a weird time of year, but c’mon, people. If you’re reading this and you didn’t vote, I am officially revoking your right to crab about anything the eventual winner of the election does once he or she gets to the US Senate.

And that’s the new question: who will voters send to the Senate next month? Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley or State Senator Scott Brown (R – Wrentham)?

Before I weigh in on that, let’s look at the primary race and how Coakley and Brown got their wins.

Well, with Brown it’s an easy answer: Jack E. Robinson sucks as a candidate. Sorry, Jack E., but it’s true; you popped up about a month before the election, then didn’t do a whole heck of a lot to promote yourself. You waste space on the ballot every time you half-heartedly run for something. Next time, get serious or get out of the way.

Coakley benefited from several factors, only some of which were within her control. Frankly, her ideas didn’t stand out in any huge way from Congressman Mike Capuano’s, Alan Khazei’s, or Steve Pagliuca’s, so I think it’s not unfair to say that she got by on superior name recognition born of a strong grass roots campaign, her mostly positive track record as AG, the fact that she wasn’t part of a federal government structure that has spent much of the year spinning its wheels and getting bogged down in pointless in-fighting (especially among the Dems), and her very disciplined presentation.

(That latter point, which was a plus in the primaries, may be a drawback from here on out, but I’ll get to that in a bit.)

That she was the sole female in the race? I think that heightened her visibility, but it’s tough to say whether it crossed the fine line into swaying voters…let’s just say it didn’t hurt her.

Capuano sank himself by playing the Ted Kennedy card as hard as he did. Perhaps he was trying to appeal to voters who liked Kennedy — and they are many — but instead he came across as a wannabe Kennedy carbon copy at a time when people are kind of tired of the same-old same-old.

Khazei’s story is lamentable. Of the four Dems I believe his desire to serve the public was the most sincere and selfless, but he showed his political inexperience by failing to get his message out early and often. He made a decent showing in the final weeks of the campaign — enough to barely surpass at the polls Steve Pagliuca, who came out of the gate at a respectable gallop — but it was too little too late. I for one would like to see Khazei regroup and take another shot, if not for this office in 2012 then for another major elected office.

Pagliuca, as mentioned above, started strong but couldn’t keep the momentum up, and time eventually proved his enemy. The more people got to know him, the more he came across as a businessman dabbling in politics rather than a serious candidate. And really, wheeling out a Celtics championship trophy during your later campaign stops just smacks of desperation.

So, now we come to January’s Big Game, and I think most would agree that Coakley has the edge in a state that, despite the fact more than half of its voters are unenrolled, is still very blue. She also has the advantage of greater exposure; Brown has been pounding the pavement a lot, but the limp GOP primary did him no favors as the Boston media’s spotlight has been solidly on the Democrats — therefore on Coakley — for months.

Brown is doing himself a disservice with some of the stuff he’s tossed out in his opening salvos against Coakley. On Monday he threw down what has become a standard gauntlet for whoever has less money to blow on a campaign: the challenge to refrain from accepting special interest money. Yeah, that old chestnut.

The Brown campaign issued the challenge earlier this week in response to an SEIU-sponsored radio ad series supporting Coakley.  It read, it part:

“The news that SEIU is supporting Martha Coakley with a six-figure, last-minute expenditure is obscene. It reinforces the perception that she is the candidate of the status quo who will protect big government spending programs at the expense of taxpayers,” said Brown.

Brown said public employee unions like SEIU have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at a time when people are looking for a new direction in Washington.

Brown added: “Martha Coakley needs to tell the big government unions to stop trying to buy this election. This election can’t be bought and we should let the people decide without any outside interference. We should be looking out for the people’s interests and not the special interests.”

“Accepting this money shows that Martha Coakley is already playing the role of the Washington insider. If she becomes the nominee we should expect more money from more special interest groups trying to influence this election.”

Now, for the record, Coakley is raking in some crazy union/PAC money (more than two dozen such donations according to the Federal Election Commission), but Brown himself has accepted a couple PAC donations during the campaign (and even more during his last state Senate run) — but more to the point: the tactic has to my knowledge never worked, either in terms of a candidate agreeing to turn down such hefty donations or in convincing the public Hey, I’m not some “Rich Uncle Pennybags Goes To Washington” type; I’m just an average guy who’s going to fight for you!

As I write this, Brown just fired off another favorite cliche, the I Won’t Raise Your Taxes And I Challenge My Opponent To Say The Same gambit. Again: has this ever worked? No one likes paying taxes and God knows people are digging it even less nowadays, but this is and always has been empty pandering.

Brown has also displayed a mildly combative attitude in the opening day of Phase Two. In his primary night acceptance speech, he called the Democratic primary a race for the title of “most liberal,” and said Coakley as US Senator would be a “partisan placeholder,” a “rubber stamp” for the Democratic supermajority, and (my favorite) “another robot who’s programmed to vote like the rest of our (Congressional) delegation.”

Now, if that fire can be reined in and strategically doled out in modest doses, it could add some much-needed zazz to a race that has thus far been a major league h0-hummer. It could even take Coakley off her carefully crafted and disciplined game and lead her to make a crucial misstatement; Coakley showed that she can handle a cool room with ease, but she hasn’t shown whether she can maintain that poise in the face of a more direct attack delivered with a side of hot sauce.

Yet, as we’ve seen too often, that fire can burn out of control too easily, and Massachusetts voters traditionally hate candidates who run aggressively negative. Recall if you will the 2004 effort to reinvigorate the GOP’s presence in the state Legislature, which flopped hard in part because the candidates ran negative, fast and furious and frequently (and I’ve heard the same accusation from local Republicans of a much more reasonable and level-headed nature).

An element of that negativity that has become increasingly common in Republican campaigns is an over-reliance on the GOP Big Book of Sound Bites, a collection of slogans, mottos, and high-concept sales pitches that, for starters, reveal an appalling lack of imagination on the candidate’s part.

Personally, I don’t want to hear Brown talk about how the country is going in the wrong direction, how anything with the tag “liberal” attached to it is bad bad bad, or how one-party rule is ruining things (it is, but it’s always disingenuous when coming from whichever party currently has the short end of the stick). I don’t want to hear Brown regurgitate the national platform chapter-and-verse in small easily digestible chunks that use lots of small words so I don’t get confused. I want to hear HIM; HIS ideas, explained to me at length and in detail, free of partisan contexts. Appeal to my intellect, please. Assume I have a guiding intelligence, a sense of reason and logic;  don’t try to ply me with empty cliches that provoke a visceral response but tell me nothing.

An independent voice? Sure it is.

But I digress.

From a strategic standpoint, speaking in sound bites leaves one vulnerable. To wit: his crack about Coakley voting like a robot in lockstep with the Democrats? What, and he wouldn’t? Am I to believe Brown wouldn’t diligently vote exactly how the GOP wants him to, i.e., in direct opposition to anything coming from the Dems? He’s talked about limited government and honoring personal freedom, yet the standard GOP platform is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage — in other words, things that limit an individual’s freedom to make very personal choices.

Ah, but what about Coakley, you ask? I’m not under any delusion that she’s a loyal Democrat and is going to vote as Democrats do, speak ill of the GOP as Democrats do, and yeah, probably support some new and creative ways to dig our national debt hole a little deeper and suck more money out of my pocket. Democrats have yet to prove to me they can shake off the “tax and spend” stereotype in any serious way, and in all honesty, I tend to like Republicans’ fiscal policies a lot more the Democratic policies (except for the whole “free market” thing…ask any retiree who saw his 401(k) vanish in a cloud of smoke if that system worked out well for him).

In her acceptance speech Coakley said she’d be a different kind of leader. Hm, let’s see: a Democrat running to replace a Democrat on an all-Democrat Congressional delegation that helps comprise a Congressional supermajority. Yeah…real different.

But Coakley I think has yet to truly reveal her big weaknesses, and again, I think that’s due to how carefully she’s crafted her message to minimize the chinks in her armor, but if Brown and the media do their respective jobs, Coakley will get a nice trial by fire and either reveal herself as a solid candidate or, as Brown put it, a Democratic placeholder in the US Senate.

If I could set the tone of this campaign, I would insist that each candidate tell me and my fellow voters why they’re not just clones cast in their respective party molds. I would insist that they stick to talking about ideas rather than political philosophies (or dogma, if you prefer). I would insist that they never play the blame game and try to build themselves up by tearing down their opponent and their opponent’s party. I would insist that they emphasize their own strengths rather than their opponent’s real or imagined weaknesses.

And I would insist that the voters, unlike in the primary, paid attention and got involved.

Other blogs

Follow us on Facebook

Advertisement