Anyone who knows anything about recent presidential races, especially if they’re from Massachusetts, knows about the extraordinary moment when moderator Bernard Shaw asked Mike Dukakis in a televised debate:
If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?
In answering, Dukakis showed no hint of emotion, instead rattling off statistics about the Massachusetts crime rate. It didn’t go well from there.
So two days ago, a woman called into Howie Carr’s radio show to ask Charlie Baker what she thought about Jeff Perry and his strip search problem. She noted that Baker had campaigned together with Perry, and she then asked
what you think about all the allegations that have come out and the victim speaking up and criticizing Perry for his actions as a police officer?
Baker’s answer is remarkably Dukakoid, in that it shows no hint of emotion, instead rattling off prepared talking points about spending and Washington. Listen to it again.
No hint of compassion for the victim. No hint of emotion or any other human attribute; rather, a robotic recitation of talking points.
What if the caller had gone Bernard Shaw on Baker and asked about Baker’s own daughter? What if she had asked what he’d think now if it had been Baker’s own daughter who was illegally strip-searched and groped in a cranberry bog all those years ago while Perry stood by and did nothing? Would we still have gotten the robo-candidate we heard yesterday? Would we still have heard echoes of Mike Dukakis failing to respond with ordinary human emotion?
Hard to say. Maybe someone will ask that question of Baker before November 2.
Mike’s “error” was lack of anger. Charlie’s is lack of compassion. These are not the same.
<
p>The latter is much worse in my view (indeed the former may be a strength). But Charlie’s supporters will not punish him for not caring about a rape victim.
Mike should have been angry at the question, and then answered it. Baker should have taken that approach too, and answered that he’s sure Perry wasn’t aware that Flanagan was doing something wrong when he was searching the girl for drugs.
<
p>By the way, is Flanagan’s confession on line somewhere? What did he confess to? Raping her? Or just searching her in a way that violated her civil rights?
<
p>And this:
<
p>
<
p>2. Again, do your own homework. Also, the “just” in your last sentence is positively amazing given everything that has been written about Mr. Flanagan on this very website. Have you read anything?
<
p>Let me help you out: Mr. Flanagan was “just searching her in a way” that is a sexual assault. Perhaps you missed all the talk about “sexual assault” while you were busy not reading everything posted here about this case. There can be no other reason for you to suggest or conclude that this was either a case of rape or a search that “just” violated her civil rights.
that we were all skeptical on the first posting about this, we asked for documentation. David was on the forefront on this one. I could be mistaken but he said that he’d delete the post if there wasn’t anything to support it. So a lot of the information is linked at BMG.
… is just civil rights thing? This is just some typical liberal PC thing?
<
p>HE MOLESTED A 14 YEAR OLD GIRL WHILE ON DUTY IN A POLICE UNIFORM. AND PERRY WATCHED.
<
p>”JUST” “JUST” “JUST”???????????? DIDN’T KNOW??????
<
p>It’s OK If Your A Republican?
<
p>This is your Charlie Baker moment.
<
p>No compassion. Just win the election and cut spending for things like … victims support, or rape counseling, or child services. Cuz ya know it’s just bleeding heart civil rights crap.
<
p>Don’t get cute, just get out.
<
p>
And Perry thought he was searching her for drugs.
<
p>I’m not a victorian prissy who thinks a strip search of a person suspected of hiding drugs in their underwear is rape, or violates anyone’s rights, no matter what sex or how old they are. Assuming the strip search is done by uniformed police officers, of course (that’s what makes it OK). It’s just a strip search. Maybe there are new rules now that mean you have arrest the suspect and bring them in, and then search them by an officer of the same sex, but those hardly change anything, I’m not sure I would prefer that to just being strip searched on the scene. I’m also not a Republican, or a fan of Perry, I’m just against victorian prissiness and criminal rights.
And was sentenced to jail. Globe:
<
p>
This is what I wonder: did he admit that he made her lift her shirt and that he stuck his hand down her pants, but also claim he was only searching her, or did he admit to indecent assault? In other words, are those the same things? Did the judge just turn his admission of sticking his hand in her pants into an admission of indecent assault?
<
p>And actually, if he did admit to indecent assault, it is hard to believe that if he knew he was doing something wrong, he would do it in front of his supervisor.
He sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl under the pretense of searching her for drugs. He had done this before, but had gotten away with it. He is a child molester. What part of that don’t you understand? Are you lucid?
<
p>Are you unclear what constitutes rape? No one else here is. This isn’t about modesty. What is wrong with you??
<
p>I’m glad you’re on record for strip searching children, though. Blurring the lines between legal search and sexual assault doesn’t seem to bother you, but it does bother rational people. I think that kinda puts you somewhere in the deviant column.
<
p>You are indeed a “victorian prissy” when it comes to drugs and what constitutes a reasonable approach to someone who might have some in his/her possession.
<
p>
<
p>Okay, so as long as someone is wearing a uniform, no matter what evidence they have, they can do a strip search–of anybody, no matter the age or sex, just so long as they wear some sort of badge or uniform. Citizens have no rights to privacy of person–got it. Do you think we should all strip to get on an airplane, too?
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, most people would rather be strip searched in public before they are arrested. Why bother with rights at all? Just throw out all the “rules” and let “uniformed police officers” strip people at will. Cool.
<
p>
<
p>Your willingness to embrace the notion that people in “authority” should be able to force people to remove their clothing in public is bizarre, to put it mildly. Get some help.
<
p>He was in uniform. So was Perry. That makes it OK? The uniform?
<
p>A 14 year old girl? Are you kidding me?
<
p>First of all, what police department allows any male officer to strip search a female, of any age? And a 14 year old?
<
p>That’s prissiness? That’s some deluded overemphasis on civil rights?
<
p>STRIP SEARCHING 14 YEAR OLDS?
<
p>
<
p>JUST A STRIP SEARCH?
<
p>The officer is in jail. Perry needs to join him.
<
p>May there be an officer like Perry and his buddy in your future.
I agree. But independents will. This points to Baker’s main problem as a candidate. He doesn’t connect with voters. He answers this as if it’s a distraction keeping him off message, rather than as a human being. This is Charlie in his Pacifica, not Scott in his truck. You can bet Brown would not have answered this question in this way.
“As the father of four daughters, I wouldn’t be there.” Cahill said of the rally
fiscal discipline is more important than not covering up the molestation of a 14-year old girl. Absolutely appalling.
It isn’t even about fiscal discipline with Republicans. It’s about electing someone who will vote for John Boehner for speaker.
I’d rather Cantor or Pence.
show me when they ever had fiscal discipline. Reagan? Bush? Who???? Please, enough with this hogwash.
Maybe Gerald Ford? I think Calvin Coolidge was tight with a buck…