Mr. Brown Goes to Washington?
Of course, like me, you've also been following the special election for Ted Kennedy's seat which will come to a head this Tuesday.
What looked like a rout just a few weeks ago has turned into a political death match. It's perfectly possible Republican Scott Brown, with scant qualifications, could end up Republican Senator for Life from Massachusetts, beating Democrat Martha Coakley, whose major crime seems to have been making fun of Brown's Fenway populism.
______________________________________________
I would not kick Scott Brown out
of bed, at least not until I'd
tea-bagged him to an epic facial.
______________________________________________
I would not kick Scott Brown out
of bed, at least not until I'd
tea-bagged him to an epic facial.
______________________________________________
Her other crimes and misdemeanors will seem so equally minor to posterity that future generations will be left scratching their heads at the ease and rapidity of Brown's ascent. Coakley has been guilty of, at worst, a few gaffes (they have all been faithfully gathered here, for those who are counting). She has said nothing that would put into question her soundness of mind or fitness to serve.
What we have here is yet another example of how the rules are inverted in politics, where we readily accept the silly, simplistic claims of social climbers like Sarah Palin or Scott Brown, while dissecting every off-the-cuff remark of the clearly more qualified candidate.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't examine the unscripted remarks of candidates for clues to what they're really thinking, but anyone who doesn't see a double standard isn't paying even cursory attention. George Bush was elected and re-elected thanks to this double-standard. Sarah Palin skyrocketed to the top of the Republican Party because of it. Will Brown be its next beneficiary?
There is stinging irony here, of course, given that the seat of the Senate's highest-profile Democrat could go to trash-talking Republican himbo just when when Kennedy's legacy — embodied in the health care legislation — is about to be solidified. Brown's election, we are constantly being told, will break the Dem's filibuster-proof margin in the Senate, and surely kill the health care bill.
Now, while I would not kick Scott Brown out of bed (at least not until I'd tea-bagged him to an epic facial) I'm obviously for Coakley here (and I agree with her on Afghanistan, too, by the way), but riddle me this: what good has the filibuster-proof margin really done us thus far?
Yes, there have been a modest number of fairly minor bills passed this session, but it seems to me on the major issues of the day, Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress have dropped the ball.
You could argue that I'm asking too much too soon, but no one can tell me Obama hasn't squandered oodles of opportunities to act in this critical moment, choosing instead to chase a fanciful notion of reaching some sort of consensus with right wing radicals. All this futile coalition-building with the lunatic fringe has left us with is a missed opportunity almost as gaping as 9/12.
What all of this means — to me, at least — is that, the system doesn't work. Which is not the same as saying it's broken. It just doesn't work. Gail Collins had some thoughts on it last week. Contemplating the possibility of a Brown upset in Massachusetts she mused:
There are 100 members of the Senate. But as Brown is currently reminding us, because of the filibuster rule, it takes only 41 to stop any bill from passing.There are probably worse things than seeing this health bill fail, and we will surely see them all come to pass if Mr. Brown goes to Washington.
U.S. population: 307,006,550.
Population for the 20 least-populated states: 31,434,822.
That means that in the Senate, all it takes to stop legislation is one guy plus 40 senators representing 10.2 percent of the country.
People, think about what we went through to elect a new president — a year and a half of campaigning, three dozen debates, $1.6 billion in donations. Then the voters sent a clear, unmistakable message. Which can be totally ignored because of a parliamentary rule that allows the representatives of slightly more than 10 percent of the population to call the shots.
Why isn’t 90 percent of the country marching on the Capitol with teapots and funny hats, waving signs about the filibuster?
If you want a real reason to dislike coakley you can check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center_preschool_trial and this as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Amirault
These was a major case totally botched by Coakley that led to a man falsely imprisoned for over 17 years. It was the definition of being railroaded. You also have this case as a fine example of martha's handwork as our AG: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/melrose/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/?page=full To sum it up it's essentially a child-rape case that martha refused to investigate due to personal ties.
Of course you won't hear about these stories from the Brown campaign in vicious attack ads b/c unlike Coakley he's a class act.
Reply to this
This is one of the supposedly "vicious" attack ads of Brown from the Coakley campaign (the one where her campaign misspells Massachusetts)...
As you can see, it viciously accuses Brown of BEING A REPUBLICAN. WHICH HE IS.
Yes, there's creepy music, melodramatic narration, and the hyperbolic scene with the woman on the stairs gripping her head in anguish because she presumably can't get the day-after pill. But it's not as if the Coakley camp is implying that Brown raped the woman on the stairs, unlike ads from the Healey campaign against Deval Patrick that played on racial stereotypes and rape.
Brown's response accuses the Coakley campaign of "tearing him down" in "negative ads", claims that the Coakley campaign won't "discuss issues like health care and jobs", and then, instead of discussing issues like health care and jobs himself simply concludes "their attack ads are wrong and go too far."
As sinister as the "Who is Scott Brown -- really?" line is, it's a response to Brown's own reluctance to identify with a party he not only belongs to but exemplifies, but from which he's trying to distance himself by implying he's "an Independent".
He's not. That's what Coakley's much ballyhooed "attack ad" was about.
For all her faults, she represents the best chance of moving forward. I like her on the issues. And for the record, nothing about Brown's reframing the facts as a personal attack and finally finding his voice as a victim convinces me he's a class act. Just an ordinary Republican.
Reply to this
So then this ad would have been enough to get your vote:
Reply to this
I'm not sure if you meant to leave it blank, Dani, but if so, you're sort of right. I have to be perfectly honest, I don't pay too much attention to political ads. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I would hope I wouldn't decide based on a thirty-second spot who to vote for. Which is not to say it's an agonizing process for me. I have my issues. It's politics. That's what it's about.
Reply to this