- Maurice T. Cunningham on Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page
- JeroldDuquette on Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page
- Jerold Duquette on What’s worse than Tea Party economic policy? Tea Party foreign policy.
- Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page | on The Myth of Martha Coakley’s Mistakes
- Patrick Johnson on What’s worse than Tea Party economic policy? Tea Party foreign policy.
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
Tag Archives: Martha Coakley
Among the myriad metrics by which we are judging the gubernatorial campaigns, how good are the candidate websites? What characteristics make for an effective political website? I’ll offer some analysis with help from an article by Professors Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati and Christine B. Williams of Bentley College, “Closing Gaps, Moving Hurdles: Candidate Web Site Communication in the 2006 Campaigns for Congress,” in Costas Panagopoulos’s book Politicking Online: The Transformation of election Campaign Communications. First up, Martha Coakley.
Professor Ubertaccio stood up for the Democratic Party’s 15% rule yesterday against the combined might of Boston Globe columnists Scot Lehigh and Joan Vennochi. Lehigh argues that the party requirement robs voters of a wider range of voices in the primary. Vennochi criticizes party insiders deciding what the people alone should determine. Professor Ubertaccio replied that in fact the caucus and convention system is a positive boon for self-government.
Let me add two additional reasons to support Professor Ubertaccio’s case. The caucus/convention system adds a counterweight in favor of the citizen versus big money influence; and the organization bolstered by the system pays off politically.
An increasing cadre of Massachusetts politicians is showing up on what the Boston Herald terms “bombshell ‘sponsor’ lists” kept by the state Probation Department encompassing “stunning documents” detailing recommendation letters. So are politicians fleeing the frenzy?
Actually many of them proudly own up to their efforts to help constituents get jobs and some are utilizing my all-time favorite defense from James Michael Curley, the “I did it for a friend” excuse. The deftest channeler of The Rascal King has been none other than Attorney General Martha Coakley.
The Boston Herald has been having a field day with the latest developments in the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution of former Probation Department commissioner John J. O’Brien. Should we be “shocked – shocked(!)” at the fact that even our own Massachusetts Trial court maintained a list of politically connected job seekers, much like the list kept by O’Brien?
Not really. As the political scientist Daniel J. Elazar wrote years ago in “Marketplace and Commonwealth, and the Three Political Cultures,” Massachusetts has an individualistic political culture – it behaves like a marketplace, including politicians assisting job seekers in exchange for support.
The WBUR/MassINC Polling Group is just out with their January 2014 poll, the results are in, and the Biggest Loser is (drum roll) . . . #Mapoli Nation!
This may seem suspect since #Mapoli is an amorphous concept; that and the fact that WBUR/MIPG didn’t ask a question about #Mapoli.
Shirley Leung, The Boston Globe’s business columnist, provided a public service the other day by running down what all the gubernatorial candidates have to say about casinos in Massachusetts. Recent casino stories have included East Boston voting down a casino and Revere attempting to adopt it, the travails of Chairman Steve Crosby, Governor Deval Patrick suing to stop a Native American casino on Martha’s Vineyard, Repeal the Casino Deal advocates filing enough signatures to reach the ballot and preparing an effort to overturn Attorney General Martha Coakley’s disapproval of the ballot measure, and on and on. Everywhere you look there are known-knowns, known-unknowns, and politicians should fear, some unknown-unknowns.
Martha Coakley, this time you’ve gone too far. When the Boston Globe ran an article in which Democrats fretted that you are a political bumbler and fumbler, my colleague Professor Ubertaccio rose to your defense. I made fun of the Democratic knee-knockers too. Then in The Myth of Martha Coakley’s Mistakes I argued that the AG’s fumbles and bumbles didn’t really impact the 2010 special election loss to Scott Brown.
So how does the AG thank us? With this, from Frank Phillips of the Globe: Martha Coakley’s Campaign Funds in Disarray.
I’ll continue to maintain that Coakley’s fumbles and bumbles didn’t cost her the election in 2010. But they might cost her the election of 2014.
Even those with limited expectations for the Congress would assume members to have mastery of junior high civics concepts. Such optimism was misplaced in the Tea Party which brought the country to the brink of crisis over the simple notion that a law passed by a previous Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court might go into effect.
Tea Party Patriots worship the Constitution of course. Since my students and I have been reading The Federalist Papers together this semester I’ve been struck with how our modern practices are matching up to The Federalist Papers. Not well, I’m afraid.
If there is one unassailable bit of conventional wisdom among Democrats in this state it is that Martha Coakley blew the special senate election against Scott Brown in 2010 with her gaffe prone campaign. It is such a verity that the AG herself, campaigning for governor, goes about the state in sack cloth chanting mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The only problem with that narrative is that it is wrong. Martha’s Mistakes didn’t matter.