In a move that indicates donors have dried up, Grossman is writing his campaign a personal check for $200,000.00.
It’s obvious he feels the attack ads are working.
His SuperPAC’s ghoulish attempt to link Coakley to the deaths of young black males seems to have helped him in some polling. Is that the direction he’ll throw more money at? Maybe another attempt to paint Coakley as the “NRA’s darling”?
So, what is his end game? How low will he go?
The Globe:
Even if Grossman fails to score an upset, he could still potentially deny Coakley a decisive victory that would help her raise money and energize Democrats in what is expected to be a tough general election fight.
Is that his goal? To deny the corner office to the Party he once led?
Please share widely!
He’s the former chair of both the state and national party committees. He is known for turning Silvio Conte’s seat Democratic by insisting that all primary candidates endorse and work for the nominee when Conte died while he was DSC chair. There is no way he will intentionally deprive a Democrat of the Corner Office.
If the actions that Ms. Coakley has promoted as Attorney General and advocates as gubernatorial candidate ARE, in fact, linked to the deaths of young black males, then it is those policies that are “ghoulish”.
Ms. Coakley has, in fact, strongly advocated increased militarization of police. She has advocated for the expansion of government surveillance. She supported the Patriot Act and its extensions. She looked the other way while the Boston office of the FBI recruited an ex-Oakland CA cop who left that department under the cloud of substantiated complaints of PD abuse of minorities.
One plain fact is that young black males ARE being killed at a disproportionate rate. Another plain fact is that the policies of “cop-friendly” politicians like Martha Coakley and Maura Healey contribute to that problem.
If my party nominates a candidate that is not fit to hold the corner office, then my party should lose that election.
Wouldn’t limiting gun purchases be the “cop-friendly” policy?
One of those children featured in the Grossman’s ad died because of Coakley’s “cop-friendly” policies? Which child? Which policy? The ad implies they died because of Coakley’s non-support of a bill limiting legal gun purchases. Which of those children’s lives were so ended? Which murder weapon was the second-in-a-month legal purchase, and who purchased it?
Not having jurisdiction didn’t stop her when she cared about the issue.
The rest of your comment isn’t worth responding to.
I’m glad you’ve finally realized it’s indefensible, though.
I’ve wasted enough time arguing with climate change deniers to recognize a Gish-Gallop when I see it.
…about something everyone knew she could not do anything about. You have made it sound like she could actually do something about the FBI.
I think the sitting Attorney General has FAR MORE influence over the actions of the Boston FBI than you admit.
Mr. MacFarlane is apparently defrauding the Oakland PD, since he is collecting a generous pension based on his being fully disabled. I grant you that Ms. Coakley has a difficult time going that route because of her (and our) long-standing tolerance of exactly the same fraudulent abuses by the Boston police and firefighters — but still, he either is or is not disabled.
Mr. MacFarlane was accompanied by a State Police contingent. Presumably that requires some cooperation between the two offices. I’m confident that said cooperation provided many opportunities for Ms. Coakley to make her feelings known.
ANY government executive senior enough to handle the governor’s office — or even the AG’s office — needs a richly-stocked toolbox ready to draw on in such situations. Some of those tools involve statuary actions explicitly provided for in the laws of the state. Some of those tools involve more private carrots and sticks.
At a minimum, Ms. Coakley could have voiced her opinion about Mr. McFarlane just as loudly as she chastised the maroons on the radio show. She chose not to.
I don’t want dishonest thugs like Aaron MacFarlane on a government payroll in my state. I have no use for an Attorney General — or governor — who looks the other way at such corruption.
… first, foremost, and always. The fact that anyone would make the charge that he’s running a scorched earth campaign and would sit on his hands if Coakley is the nominee is ludicrous. Have they forgotten Steve’s resume … or have they become a bit panicky? Are Coakley supporters that unsure of their candidate’s ability to bring everyone together AFTER Sept. 9? If that’s the case, don’t blame Steve; he’s a committed Dem and will without question support our nominee. But if those worries persist, dear Coakley people, then perhaps you should think about voting for someone else!
No one cares about anything after that except who won the Democratic primary. Will it be Martha Coakley by 20 points or maybe Martha Coakley by 10 points?
This is the vitally important question.
So vital that pissing off Grossman supporters doesn’t matter.