Like yours truly, Martha Coakley is a graduate of the college currently ranked (by U.S. News and World Report) as the nation’s top liberal arts college. But, unlike our fellow alum and her fellow Democrat, Chris Murphy, she doesn’t seem very interested in the concerns of her constituents who do not share her political point of view.
The Massachusetts Democrat, her party’s nominee for the Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy, has so far refused a one-on-one debate with her Republican opponent Scott Brown. You’d think a Williams graduate would relish the chance to debate an ideological adversary. After all, in many of our classes, class participation counted toward our grade.
Not just that, as a former District Attorney of Middlesex County and current state Attorney General, she should have perfected the art of public speaking and debate.
Even Brian McGrory of the liberal Boston Globe is asking, “Where’s Martha Coakley?”
Coakley, in exquisitely diva-like form, is refusing all invitations to debate her Republican opponent in the race, Scott Brown, unless a third-party candidate with no apparent credentials is included on the stage. She may also require a crystal bowl of orange-only M&Ms in her dressing room, but we haven’t gotten that far yet. Her demands have led to an astonishing result: there will be just one — that’s one — live televised debate in the Boston media market this general election season. . . .
This is all part of a Coakley pattern. When she ran for attorney general, she didn’t allow even the Republican candidate on a debate stage. In fact, she refused to debate at all. . . .
Here’s one problem with all this: When you’re a United States senator, you’re expected to get up on the Senate floor and forcefully debate the issues of the day. You’re expected to be a strong voice in hearings.
Both the man she’d like to succeed (the late Teddy Kennedy) and the man with whom she’d like serve (John Kerry) debated their Republican opponents. If Mrs. Coakley can’t stand up to the Republican challenging her for the chance to represent the Bay State in the United States Senate, how will she be able to stand up for the Bay State in the United States Senate?
A Williams alumna should have the guts to take on a challenger in a battle of wits. Now, she’s following in the footsteps of the most ignominious man in our college history. Like Zephaniah Swift Moore, she’d rather turn tail than face the challenges of her job.
*NB: I changed the title.
Who ever heard of having to debate before your ascension? The idea is utterly plebeian, without even considering that it is a Republican who would be the object sharing the dais. If the masses want a debate, let them debate the Republican. Senator-in-Preparation Coakley has already been debased by this tawdry campaign and voting ritual, must she face the Republican and treat him as an equal? I think not.
Dan,
While you are busy supporting conservatives, they are busy trying to take away your civil rights as a gay American. I am certain that you are aware that the forces on the right side of the aisle have as a centerpiece of their attempts to conserve traditional values a certain contempt for people who, in their words, “choose the gay lifestyle”. Could you kindly explain your affinity for supporting people who don’t acknowledge your right to be gay, but consider it a defect and a sin on your part? Just asking.
On the other hand, Martha Coakley is one of the strongest supporters of gay civil rights around. So while you are busy attacking her, she will be busy trying to preserve your civil rights. Ironic, ain’t it?
Charlie, please identify the civil rights that conservatives are trying to take away from gay Americans with specific references to the particular legislation and initiatives.
And please study the history of American conservatism and the ideological background of most (but alas not all) elected Republicans before leveling such inaccurate broadsides as you do in your second sentence. In that sentence, you clearly indicate how poorly informed you are about the ideas which undergird American conservatism. The animating idea of that movement is the same which motivated American patriots to take to arms over two centuries ago: freedom.
I do hope you’re not a graduate of America’s finest liberal arts college because your comment betrays an incredible ignorance about one of the most dynamic political movements in our country in the past fifty years.
Your certainty is based on a prejudiced view of the American right, defining it by the most extreme social conservatives.
Oh, and, you don’t even address the point of the post about Mrs Coakley’s refusal to debate. You do betray the qualities of debate familiar to graduates of that safety school in the Connecticut Valley.
While you are busy supporting conservatives, they are busy trying to take away your civil rights as a gay American.
Really?
She supports confiscating my weapons.
She supports requiring me by law to purchase health insurance or be sent to jail.
She thinks I should be denied the right to vote on and amend my own constitution.
Those are my civil rights as an American, codified in the Constitution and backed up by centuries of case law — and she opposes them.
Meanwhile, you support her because she finds an imaginary “right” for you to marry the sexual partners of your choice — despite that “right” being regularly denied by law to heterosexuals whose choices in partners do not meet the standards already established by society.
It is beyond hilarious to watch the gay welfare pets come here and whine about their “rights”. Charlie and his ilk would (and do) embrace slavery as long as they can have gay-sex marriage.
Just to clarify, it was the writers of the constitution – in all of their admitted imperfection – who supported and protected slavery. I do not. I support gay rights, even though I am not gay, because of the principles that conservatives profess to support, namely individual freedom, including the right to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The trouble with principles is that you have to support them most strongly when they run most contrary to what is comfortable for you personally.
Um, Charlie, I addressed your points and offered some challenges to you which you ignored. Guess you, like Martha Coakley, aren’t much interested in an exchange of ideas. Instead, you make snide remarks about conservatives.
Please tell me you did not go to Williams.
Dan,
Williams ’75, Martha Coakley’s class. My cousin was in your class. To address your concerns about Martha’s ducking of the debate, I am frankly torn. On the one hand, I think a free exchange of ideas on the part of candidates is essential to a strong democracy. I would prefer that Martha not avoid this. On the other hand, I spent time in Georgia and watched Karl Rove’s hatchet men eviscerate Max Cleland through power politics. Please tell me that you decried that abomination of the political process, as well as the Swift Boat Veterans for the Lying as much as you are currently holding Martha to task. What do you think Karl Rove would advise Martha to do in her current situation? Would you still address this situation with the same emotional vehemence if it was a republican candidate trying to do what would secure a victory?
Just thought I’d ask.
Dan,
One last item. There is this wonderfully duplicitious kind of political discourse where energized operatives on both the left and the right castigate their opponents for actions and positions that they themselves would gladly employ in order to secure strategic advantage. We both know that this is deliberately obfuscated and overlooked by the practitioners, again to secure political advantage.
Look for me at reunion this summer. I’ll buy you a drink and we can apply transcendent discourse to this whole matter and return some measure of civil discourse to the democratic process.
Charlie, tanks for addressing my point. Who’s your cousin?
Please identify the lies in the Swift Boat Vets ads.
Where did I bring up Karl Rove? Please specify the specific things that upset you about his actions in Georgia so I can address them.
Charlie, thanks for the invitation and civil tone of your comment #8, much appreciated. You’d have gotten off to a better start if you had begun your response with the gist of your comment #7, leaving out the broadsides against Rove. Not sure what his “hatchet men” have to do with the issue at hand.
Dan,
Re: Max Cleland. A series of ads were run by the Republican party in essence accusing Max Cleland of being someone who is unpatriotic, even a traitor, transposing his picture with a variety of persons associated with terrorism. In essence, a smear campaign in the politics of personal destruction. This is someone who lost two legs and an arm serving his country in Vietnam. It was repugnant, but strategically very successful. I do not accuse the Republicans of exclusively cheapening the political discourse. LBJ set a pretty high standard on that front with his daisy ad targetting Goldwater. And there is a long history of vicious attacks between candidates going back to our founding fathers. Vigorous debate, I believe the term was back then.
What I have a problem is what our forefathers worried about in moving towards a Republic. There is a very thin veneer of civilization and a lot of ugliness just beneath it. It takes a lot of work to keep a democracy from sliding into anarchy. It begins with a willingness to honor civil discourse and a shared willingness to examine together – with shared commitment – what resolutions can be found to important differences.
My initial response to your post has to do with an inconsistency I see between your holding Martha Coakley to important principles of democracy, and your willingness to adopt a harsh and condemnatory tone. While it makes for good theatre, and perhaps good readership on the blogosphere, it contributes its small part to the cheapening of dialogue. However, you have rightly corrected me on my responding to this in kind when I look to present myself as someone who holds himself to standards involving more civil modes of communication. Mea culpa on that front. Because I know Martha as a person first, and a politician second, my protective responses can kick in when I see her attacked in ways that appear to be excessive. Her sin in this case is wanting to win, and she has sacrificed a small piece of her honor to do so. I suspect you have a similar cringe when a conservative candidate that you support makes similar calculations.
I will keep my cousin’s name private from this conversation on the internet, but will gladly address when we meet. Until then, keep the wheels of democracy rolling. We liberals need your voice of dissent as much as your need ours in order to keep us all from sliding into the abyss of our own limitations.
Charlie–
Please provide a link to the ad so I can address the point. I have seen one ad on the web from the Georgia ’02 race and saw no such slur (against Cleland), but maybe I was looking at the wrong ad.
Inconsistency? Please show where I defended a Republican for dodging a debate?
That said, you do make a good point in your third ¶ in raising the political expediency argument. Though, given the Globe editorial, it looks like it’s backfiring.
Dan,
The ad ran on TV many times over the course of the election process. Saw it myself, but don’t have recourse to where you might find it on youtube.
The inconsistency I alluded to is the overall tone of your essay, beginning with the matter of “Disgrace to her Alma Mater.” If you are a defender of democracy – to which you are alluding in your attack on her decision – then you must decide as to whether you contribute to the national discourse in a manner that also defends democracy. If you are familiar with the philosophical concept of the tragedy of the commons, there are dangers in drawing down the shared resources upon which democracy depends. Once a certain level of crassness and mutual contempt is reached in the political discourse, then the capacity to work on shared purposes is disrupted. Then we are all at risk.
There is not an infinite amount of goodwill that binds us all together in society. No one knows where the tipping point exists on this front. You hold Martha to a high standard – expecting her to put aside strategic considerations as a matter of principle. As participants in a shared democracy, the setting of high standards begins in our relationship with ourselves, especially in the maintenance and preservation of that shared goodwill that allows us to co-exist. Your tone does not, in my humble opinion, contribute positively to the common good of public discourse. There are ways to communicate your difference of opinion with Martha’s stances and positions that do not cheapen the discourse in problematic ways. Again, taking a higher road in this matter may not be good theatre or be the cultural norm of the blogosphere, but each choice of action sets in motion consequences that strengthen or harm the commons upon which our democracy depends.
Additionally, we are all in the position of needing to remember that our public officials begin their life as people and retain their humanity throughout. We all have a stake in trying to create an environment in which good people will take upon themselves the responsibility of public service. There is a certain impersonality to the internet that allows people to attack in ways that most civil people would never consider doing face to face. While the commentators are largely shielded from the effects of their choices of speech, the movement seems to be that fewer people with basic human decency are willing to take those burdens of service upon them. That will leave us with the people who enter politics for personal reasons, rather than serving the greater good. Each choice made in political arenas can become another small cut that ultimately brings on the demise of the patient. As an important voice for your constituency on the internet, this means that you have some cause to examine and consider these responsibilities.
People usually do not realize that their civilization is falling until it is past the tipping point. Of this, I do worry.
Charles makes one huge error and helps to continue the myth that Max Cleland was a war hero. He lost his legs and arm to his own error, not to action within the Vietnam war. He blew up his own grenade and did the damage to himself, through carelessness or ignorance, I do not know the answer. He never was and is not a war hero, but he sure loves pushing that status around alot.
Never mind the politics, I want to know who Dan brided to make them switch the 1st and 13th spots? 🙂
ahm that should be bribed…. I really need a spell checker
Re: Max Cleland. A series of ads were run by the Republican party in essence accusing Max Cleland of being someone who is unpatriotic, even a traitor, transposing his picture with a variety of persons associated with terrorism. In essence, a smear campaign in the politics of personal destruction. This is someone who lost two legs and an arm serving his country in Vietnam.
The entertaining thing about that is the fact that Max Cleland openly supports the forging of government documents and the coordination of a political campaign with those who forge them and the media who obediently “report” at that campaign’s command in order to smear others.
On August 21, with the Swift boat attacks on Kerry raging, Burkett posted another message. He was less pessimistic this time. “I spent some time on the phone with the Kerry campaign seniors yesterday,” he wrote. After getting past “seven layers of bureaucratic kids,” he continued, he finally reached former senator Max Cleland. “I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. [Cleland] said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with,” Burkett went on.
Cleland, for his part, did not think the call from Burkett was unusual. “People call me with stuff all the time,” he told AP last week. “I don’t know whether this guy is legit or fraudulent. I have no idea. I just referred him to the campaign.” After the call ended, Cleland says, he let the Kerry campaign’s opposition research team know about Burkett, and gave them the former guardsman’s name and contact information.
In short, cry us a river, hypocrite. While Cleland is screaming about people telling the truth about John Kerry’s “war record”, he’s openly spreading and pushing forged government documents to smear George Bush.
Coakley and her officers failed to assess child sexual abuse at Catholic school for the retarded.
Coakley and her officers failed to stop #umassmed #violentdoctors who harassed, discriminated against, battered and sexually assaulted women, patients and women patients.
Coakley and her officers failed to protect a disabled female whistleblower from harm and then assaulted her and criminally charged her.
Coakley and her officers failed to stop medical fraud and dangerous practices at physical therapy site that engaged in conspiracy. Owner Dale Theberge eventually charged by U.S. Attorney and sent to federal prison. Injuries sustained.
Coakley and her officers allow sexually assaulting physician Lewis E. Braverman to continue to see women, children, and indigent patients at Boston University.
Coakley, the FBI, and police officers fail to assess and prevent multiple cases of medical fraud and abuse by doctors and hospitals.
Don’t trust Coakley or the Democratic Money Machine.