“In the Senate, I’ll work to strengthen cyber-security.”
Please. The little girl in that video is FAR more at risk from the consequences of Ms. Coakley’s bull-in-a-china-cabinet blundering on health care than from anything she’s likely to encounter on that laptop.
I don’t need more laws to “strengthen cybersecurity” to know that my children that age did not use their laptops in their room without my supervision. The government’s attempts to strengthen cybersecurity have been nearly as effective as their similarly incompetent efforts to improve airport security. Perhaps Ms. Coakley might have greater insight into this issue if she experienced it from the perspective of a parent in addition to her professional capacity. She might also be less willing to exploit young children as props in a political campaign.
I do, on the other hand, need affordable health care for my sons and daughters.
The more I see of Martha Coakley, the more I dislike her brand of politics.
This ad, in the context of her makes me far less inclined to vote for her ever, in ANY election.
and offers herself as the antidote. She’s awful.
<
p>Martha Coakley’s legal career has been dominated by cases that seek to protect children. This is her area of expertise and yet as BrooklineTom points out, “most child sexual abuse comes at the hands of relatives.” Her ad does touch that fact with a ten foot pole. Instead, it shows the child at risk.
<
p>Coakley was chief of the Child Abuse Protection Unit in the Middlsex DA’s office. And yet she doesn’t use the ad to educate the public. Instead she uses it and the fear it creates to offer herself as a solution. (I have a feeling we could anticipate national legislation that give the government more authority to surveill and stiffer sentences for child abuse if Martha is elected.)
<
p>What you need to know about Martha is that this ad is not a gambit. This is the Martha you would be choosing if you give her your vote on Dec 8. Think it over.
Its terrible that our states’ top cop, and the top cops of most states’, end up running these god awful populist campaigns. They take on the ‘elites’ of big business, big tobacco, wall street, etc. while sticking up ‘for the little guy’ whether it be protecting kids or keeping criminals off the street. Yet Spitzer and other before and since have used a series of unprecedented prosecutorial power that skirted constitutional rights and running campaigns through the mass media. Her idiotic position on Stupak also strikes a populist tone, aka I am a fighter who will bring down the system that allows these bad deals to happen. There is just this terrible tone of moral righteousness that characterizes DAs and AGs in particular and makes them think they have to have their way. Sorry I trust a lawmaker to make laws not the people entrusting some mythical crusader.
In the same sense that progressivism can be corrupted into elitism. Coakely is guilty of both.
And more evidence of instincts that are as reactionary as they are progressive.
Opportunistic.
<
p>Re: “progressive” instincts, see “elitism” above.
Martha Coakley made her bones in the infamous Fells Acres case.
That she was “opportunistic” then, too, is of course entirely possible.
<
p>–TP
for someone running for reelection to a DA’s office than for election to US Senate.