Opinion of Martha Coakley

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Horrible. When you run a complete disaster of a campaign, you go away. Her running again would be equivalent to Todd Akin running again. I'm sure she's nice and has decent political views but she has damaged the party by being a failure.

Feingold's campaign was a disaster (he refused to accept outside help) but most people want him to run again. Most people correctly assign the blame to the political climate, not to Feingold even though he made some mistakes. Why isn't this true for Coakley as well? It's hard to think of a time more politically hostile to Democrats than January 2010 (except maybe November 2010). Yes, Massachusetts was much bluer and Coakley's campaign was much worse, but can that really explain this huge difference in sentiment?

That's not why she's an HP. Incompetent campaigns don't make someone HP.

As Wormy said, Coakley used her position to keep innocent people in prison. That's a textbook HP if there ever was one.

[Cory]

Horrible. When you run a complete disaster of a campaign, you go away. Her running again would be equivalent to Todd Akin running again. I'm sure she's nice and has decent political views but she has damaged the party by being a failure.

Feingold's campaign was a disaster (he refused to accept outside help) but most people want him to run again. Most people correctly assign the blame to the political climate, not to Feingold even though he made some mistakes. Why isn't this true for Coakley as well? It's hard to think of a time more politically hostile to Democrats than January 2010 (except maybe November 2010). Yes, Massachusetts was much bluer and Coakley's campaign was much worse, but can that really explain this huge difference in sentiment?

That's not why she's an HP. Incompetent campaigns don't make someone HP.

As Wormy said, Coakley used her position to keep innocent people in prison. That's a textbook HP if there ever was one.

[BaconBacon96]

Keeping innocent people in prison to advance her own career is one of the worst things a politician can do.

[Mechaman]

She's so horrible that if I lived in Massachusetts I'm pretty certain I would vote for Charlie Baker, just to make sure she stays as far away from a Governor's Mansion as much as possible.

Hopefully some of the recent polls that show Baker ahead hold up till Election Day.

I mean, I'd still rather have a Democrat than a Republican be Governor (unless the Democrat is like Edwin Edwards or whatever) so I wouldn't take Baker over Coakley just to spite her. It's kinda like how I'd vote Hawkins if I lived in New York, but between Cuomo and Astorino, I'd still rather have Cuomo.

I usually wouldn't vote Republican, like ever, but Coakley is that bad of a human being.

Besides, Charlie Baker is by far one of the better Republicans one can get in this entire country.  If the GOP was full of politicians like Baker. . . . . they would be Democrats.

[Chilltown]

Awful and incompetent.

She's so horrible that if I lived in Massachusetts I'm pretty certain I would vote for Charlie Baker, just to make sure she stays as far away from a Governor's Mansion as much as possible.

Hopefully some of the recent polls that show Baker ahead hold up till Election Day.

I mean, I'd still rather have a Democrat than a Republican be Governor (unless the Democrat is like Edwin Edwards or whatever) so I wouldn't take Baker over Coakley just to spite her. It's kinda like how I'd vote Hawkins if I lived in New York, but between Cuomo and Astorino, I'd still rather have Cuomo.

I usually wouldn't vote Republican, like ever, but Coakley is that bad of a human being.

Besides, Charlie Baker is by far one of the better Republicans one can get in this entire country.  If the GOP was full of politicians like Baker. . . . . they would be Democrats.

I think that's more of a testament to how pitiful the Democratic Party is rather than how great Charlie Baker is. But I get your point.

[Phony Moderate]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

[tpfkaw]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

It's difficult to say how many people are aware of her role in the Fells Acres and Kenny Waters cases; there hasn't been any polling. I'd guesstimate it at maybe 20% of active voters, but of those 20% most are probably Republican-leaning to begin with. It's probably worth 2-3 points at the margin.

Of course, Baker could never use it as a campaign issue because it's impossible to explain in a soundbite and very easy for Coakley to demagogue: "Why is Charlie Baker defending convicted child rapists? I've always been fighting for the child victims."

[IceSpear]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

Except she was still despised here (and elsewhere) long before anyone was talking about her involvement in this particular case, so that logic doesn't really work.

What exactly is Coakley's side of the story in all this? I'm not going to take the word of an Atlas poster who cited no sources (besides a WSJ hit piece written 5 days before the 2010 special election...what a coincidence!) as fact. Maybe Coakley really is a horrible person, but I'd like to hear her side of the story before indicting her. If it doesn't satisfy me, maybe I will change my mind and support Baker.

[tpfkaw]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

Except she was still despised here (and elsewhere) long before anyone was talking about her involvement in this particular case, so that logic doesn't really work.

What exactly is Coakley's side of the story in all this? I'm not going to take the word of an Atlas poster who cited no sources (besides a WSJ hit piece written 5 days before the 2010 special election...what a coincidence!) as fact. Maybe Coakley really is a horrible person, but I'd like to hear her side of the story before indicting her. If it doesn't satisfy me, maybe I will change my mind and support Baker.

lol, Dorothy Rabinowitz has been writing about the Fells Acres case since the 90s (for her reporting on the case, she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001); that piece was just a very brief summary of her earlier work (it being rather relevant given that Martha Coakley was back in the news).

[Lief 🗽]

FF.

Too bad she keeps trying to run for office in such a misogynistic state though.

[IceSpear]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

Except she was still despised here (and elsewhere) long before anyone was talking about her involvement in this particular case, so that logic doesn't really work.

What exactly is Coakley's side of the story in all this? I'm not going to take the word of an Atlas poster who cited no sources (besides a WSJ hit piece written 5 days before the 2010 special election...what a coincidence!) as fact. Maybe Coakley really is a horrible person, but I'd like to hear her side of the story before indicting her. If it doesn't satisfy me, maybe I will change my mind and support Baker.

lol, Dorothy Rabinowitz has been writing about the Fells Acres case since the 90s (for her reporting on the case, she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001); that piece was just a very brief summary of her earlier work (it being rather relevant given that Martha Coakley was back in the news).

Then why not publish it as soon as Coakley entered the race? Or as soon as she won the Democratic primary? Why only do so after Brown's momentum was already readily apparent? It reeks of opportunism, particularly coming from the WSJ.

But it doesn't matter, that's neither here nor there. From what I read about this, there's plenty of blame to go around. Most notably, the attorneys who were in office before Coakley (you know, the ones that were actually there as the trial was going on, not over a decade after the fact like Coakley), the governor of the state (at the time, Jane Swift, a Republican), and the mass public hysteria surrounding the case. To pin all the blame on Coakley strikes me as ridiculously hackish.

[tpfkaw]

Then why not publish it as soon as Coakley entered the race? Or as soon as she won the Democratic primary? Why only do so after Brown's momentum was already readily apparent? It reeks of opportunism, particularly coming from the WSJ.

The WSJ is a national newspaper, not a Massachusetts newspaper. It reports on Massachusetts politics only when they are of national interest.

But yes, they presumably intended that piece to have a partisan impact in much the same way as the AP sat on the Bush DUI story until the weekend before the 2000 election. Difference being that, instead of withholding relevant information until it could have maximum partisan impact, the WSJ was merely reminding readers of its decade-spanning, Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles about Fells Acres, one of whose central characters had of late also become a national political figure.

Of course, deliberately keeping innocent people in prison and tarred as child rapists involves a level of extreme moral turpitude that many would consider to disqualify a person from seeking public office. So, it's a perfectly relevant thing for them to have brought up, and not only that but they ought to have brought it up. Nevertheless, as you yourself say, the WSJ's motivations are irrelevant; what matters are the facts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "mass public hysteria surrounding the case" was during the 80s. By the late 90s-mid 00s, when Coakley involved herself in it, public opinion had actually swung in the other direction, thanks to Dorothy Rabinowitz's reporting. By that point it was well-known and obvious to anyone familiar with the facts of the case that the Amiraults were innocent, and yet Coakley had her office repeatedly fight parole for the Amiraults, and, when despite her efforts the parole board unanimously recommended the release of Gerald, she took the extraordinary step of (successfully) lobbying the governor to block his release.

Coakley could have done absolutely nothing - simply ignored the case. But no, she went out of her way to deliberately keep innocent people in prison.

Scott Harshbarger, who was the Middlesex County DA during the initial prosecution, and Jane Swift, who blocked Gerald's release, share in the blame. But at least they have excuses. In Harshbarger's case, during the mid-80s there really was a mass public hysteria, and his office may well have believed its own crap about "recovered memories" and supernatural Satanist powers. In Swift's case, she was acting under a formal recommendation from Coakley. Coakley has no excuse for acting in the way she did. And, Harshbarger and Swift are not currently running for office. (Their gubernatorial campaigns in 1998 and 2002 were both unsuccessful in part because of their actions related to the Fells Acres case).

We also have the case of Kenny Waters; after it was proven that he could not possibly have committed the murder he was imprisoned for, Coakley fought tooth and nail and used every delaying tactic in the book to prevent his release. It's a pattern of extremely disturbing behavior on her part.

[morgieb]

HP, but for the reasons wormy said, rather than being a dud campaigner.

[IceSpear]

Fair enough. I will admit my opinion of her has gone down pretty drastically since reading about this. But if public opinion had turned so sharply in the other direction, then what political motive could she have for doing it? That would be the only plausible explanation, correct? I think it's safe to assume her motive wasn't "I'm evil, hahaha!"

[Mechaman]

Awful and incompetent.

She's so horrible that if I lived in Massachusetts I'm pretty certain I would vote for Charlie Baker, just to make sure she stays as far away from a Governor's Mansion as much as possible.

Hopefully some of the recent polls that show Baker ahead hold up till Election Day.

I mean, I'd still rather have a Democrat than a Republican be Governor (unless the Democrat is like Edwin Edwards or whatever) so I wouldn't take Baker over Coakley just to spite her. It's kinda like how I'd vote Hawkins if I lived in New York, but between Cuomo and Astorino, I'd still rather have Cuomo.

I usually wouldn't vote Republican, like ever, but Coakley is that bad of a human being.

Besides, Charlie Baker is by far one of the better Republicans one can get in this entire country.  If the GOP was full of politicians like Baker. . . . . they would be Democrats.

I think that's more of a testament to how pitiful the Democratic Party is rather than how great Charlie Baker is. But I get your point.

Also a part of my point.

Point is not that Baker is a hero, but that Coakley is an undefendable politician.  ANd I base that off of what she has done in her office, not how bad she blew some election.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She's forever going to be remembered as a Democrat losing Senate election in Massachusetts.

[Beet]

Have any of the accusers involved in the prosecution recanted? If not, why wouldn't they? What motive would they still have to maintain that the child abuse happened? Embarrassment?

[tpfkaw]

Have any of the accusers involved in the prosecution recanted? If not, why wouldn't they? What motive would they still have to maintain that the child abuse happened? Embarrassment?

To my knowledge, none (who have come forward publicly) have recanted. None of the accusers in the similar McMartin preschool trial have recanted either. Post "Satanic ritual abuse" hysteria, it's become well-established nowadays in the psychological and legal professions that so-called "recovered memory" charlatans in fact practice memory implantation. The accusers were especially vulnerable to memory implantation, as they were 3 or 4 years old at the time of the alleged abuse.

[WalterMitty]

hp, but im voting for her.  no choice, really.

[Cory]

hp, but im voting for her.  no choice, really.

Charlie Baker's name should be on the ballot when you go to vote.

[WalterMitty]

hp, but im voting for her.  no choice, really.

Charlie Baker's name should be on the ballot when you go to vote.

im not a right wing democrat.

[Cory]

im not a right wing democrat.

Neither am I, but sometime someone is so personally terrible that you have no choice but to vote for the other side.

[Bigby]

im not a right wing democrat.

Neither am I, but sometime someone is so personally terrible that you have no choice but to vote for the other side.

Like Tom Corbett?

[nolesfan2011]

Probably the only democrat who ran for governor this year who had a chance against Baker.

LOL Berwick would have destroyed Baker

[The Dowager Mod]

FF.
Terrible candidate though.