This really is a fascinating moment for observers of political theater. Scott Brown and Mitt Romney are probably going to have to drop their support for Jeff Perry or take several points off their election campaign projections. Child molesters (“Scott Flanagan, the officer who conducted the strip search and a similar assault on a different girl in 1992, admitted to the crimes and was convicted in 1993 of civil rights violations and indecent assault of a child”) and those who help them do their dirty work (“He had to hear me screaming and crying”) do not have a have strong electoral record in either the Commonwealth or Republican primaries. Since Brown needs Democratic and Independent votes to win in 2012, and will face a blistering Democratic attack with everything the party can throw at him, he can hardly afford to give up thousands of votes over an issue like this just to serve John Boehner’s ego. As for Romney, he needs to make himself look even more misogynistic about as much as he needs the ghost of his dog Seamus Romney to come back from the dead and testify against him (for strapping him to the car roof before driving on the highway for 10 hours).
The only reason they haven’t dropped Perry yet, I suspect, is because polls suggested he had a chance to win. Their offices are probably doing overnight assessments right now. If the results show movement away from Perry (“If you knew that Jeff Perry had permitted a convicted child molester to grope a 14 year old girl who was screaming and crying 15 feet away from him, while he was an on-duty police officer, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him?) un-endorsements will follow.
If the two top state Republicans choose to stick with Perry: what a gamble. If Flanagan’s wingman wins, which if it happens will be by a miniscule margin, props to the Senator and Colonel Blimp from the minority state Republican Party — and no new votes. If he loses, however, what a nightmare: they stuck with an enabler of child molestation (“”He had to hear me screaming and crying”), and lost. There is no upside, which may not deter Romney, given his impressive electoral incompetence, but might well dissuade Brown, who is a much more skilled politician.
af says
stand by his criminal aide for a long time, in spite of his crime? How has that affected his campaigns? True believers will stand by their candidate regardless of the proven misdeeds they have committed or condoned. On both sides.
bob-neer says
I agree completely. True believers also have a hard time running for re-election as moderates in state-wide general elections held in presidential campaign years: a test Scott Brown will face before very long. Romney has more reason to stand by Wingman Perry.
pogo says
cutting a radio commercial accusing Keating of “negative attacks which didn’t directly involve Perry. “
<
p>My God a victim steps forward and Brown dismisses her as a Keating stooge…what a low life.
gidget-commando says
Fred at Slacktivist just did a great post about how people decide what to do when confronted with their own errors or misconceptions in Jackie at the crossroads. I recommend highly.
<
p>Now that just gives me reason to dislike Sen. Brown more. Ick.
david says
it remains (as far as I know) unclear when he cut that ad. I’ve hypothesized that he did so before Lisa Allen went public. I’ll be interested to see how that one plays out.
dont-get-cute says
Googling “strip searches unconstitutional” returns lots of articles from 2008 to 2010. So what I’m wondering is, were police officers not allowed to do strip searches back in 1992? I am not saying that Flanagan didn’t abuse her, but how was Perry to know he wasn’t doing a search for suspected drugs by the book? They probably separated her from the other three guys for her own privacy. So even if he knew he was strip searching her, is it not legal for a police officer to search someone for suspected drugs by stripping them or sticking their hand into their pants? Is that unconstitutional? Can I just stash my stash in my underwear? Or is that only something 14 year old girls can do? I’m just asking about the law at the time, and the law now, I’m not denying Flanagan abused her in an unreasonable, criminal, unconstitutional way. But even assuming he did, how was Perry to know he was going over the line?
kirth says
but the Constitution was the same in 1992 as it is now.
johnt001 says
…which must be followed. If a strip search was warranted, he should have handcuffed her and brought her to the police station, where a female officer could conduct the search. Being under 16 means that her parents would have to be brought in before the search as well, I think.
dont-get-cute says
lightiris says
for this astoundingly ignorant and disrespectful comment about what was legally a sexual assault:
<
p>
<
p>Your idiocy appears to know no bounds.
centralmassdad says
I know that, in some circuits, a strip search on anyone requires a warrant, unless the person is already a prisoner. I don’t know if the 1st Circuit is among them.
judy-meredith says
About Romney. Romney’s running for President for God’s sake!!! (Actually not for God’s sake, for somebody else’s sake I think.)
<
p>Here is Domke on WBUR essay.
<
p>
jim-gosger says
Yesterday on Greater Boston, Warren Tolman (former Senator from NH) said that R’s talk privately about Perry differently than they do publicly. Apparently, they know this guy is toxic. As soon as they see he is going to lose, they will dump him. It may be too late for Brown. That was a dumb move.
johnt001 says
Tima magazine reported on it here:
<
p>http://www.time.com/time/natio…
<
p>
<
p>It made for a great limerick during the 2008 cycle:
<
p>
judy-meredith says
for sharing.
karenc says
This might affect Brown more. As witness in Delaware, they can run candidates against a Republican far more likely to win. At this point, it is not clear that he wouldn’t lose more continuing his support and not asking the ad be withdrawn.
<
p>Part of the problem is that it was likely in the primary where his endorsement had the most power. If Perry were to now lose narrowly after that powerful statement, could Brown get part of the blame for helping him get the nomination – something he was given credit for at one time.
<
p>With the ad, it is very hard for him to back track, there is really no new information (even within the victim’s statement) that he could say convinced him Perry should not be elected. He really should not have endorsed him with all these things already known in the primary.