The Boston Globe Whines About Scott Brown’s Committee Assignments

Their beef?  Brown was appointed to committees that are tasked with defending our country from people who want to kill us and supporting the veterans who have sacrificed life and limb keeping us safe – as opposed to committees that give away free stuff.

This is good news, of course, for the state’s many defense contractors, and there’s no questioning the importance of these assignments. Brown, a former army JAG lawyer, will have a chance to build on his knowledge of defense-related issues and, over time, play a substantial role in foreign policy.

The problem is that his fellow Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, is already exerting maximum clout on foreign policy as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, meaning that the state’s Senate delegation is tilting too far overseas. Kerry’s specialty in foreign policy worked well when he was partnered with Edward Kennedy, who was the leading domestic-policy legislator of his time. From his perch on what is now called the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Kennedy influenced much of social policy for the last half-century. He also tended assiduously to Massachusetts’ giant health-care industry, directing billions of federal dollars a year to local hospitals and laboratories.

Yeah, that John Kerry is a powerhouse of accomplishments in the foreign policy arena.  I wonder if they include faux covert missions to Cambodia in their list? 

The Globe can’t stand the fact that Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley and that Massachusetts is at long last being represented by someone who understands the very real threats our country faces and the need for a strong national security policy. 

To borrow a phrase from their Messiah, Barack Obama.  Sorry, but we won.

Boston Globe’s Coakley Endorsement Mentions Her Seven Times, Brown Fourteen

It looks like alarm bells are also ringing at the Boston Globe.   In their endorsement of Coakley, the editors mention her seven times.  In contrast, they mention Scott Brown fourteen times.  It reads more like a repudiation of Brown than an endorsement of Coakley.

A sample:

Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly. Ignoring signs of improvement in the economy, he casts President Obama as the source of today’s problems, and would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do. Affable in person, Brown nonetheless seeks to be a terminator, stopping the Democratic domestic agenda in its tracks.

In Massachusetts, the expected result of a Senate election is a Democratic victory, so Brown wins points for being different. He even entices voters to give him a try, noting that they can toss him out after three years.

Rarely has a pitch been more misleading. A vote for Brown is hardly a symbolic protest against congressional gridlock and the ways of Washington. It’s a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That’s what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate.

Um, that’s the point.  Thanks bow-tie bumkissers!

In case you’re wondering, the Herald endorsement of Brown mentions Coakley once.

Coakley: There Is No Way In Hell Massachusetts Is Going To Send A Republican To Washington

This pronouncement came on the heels of her telling local officials “Massachusetts needs Martha Coakley to be the next senator!’’

Both quotes appear in a failed attempt by The Boston Globe to make Coakley more human and likeable.  The puff piece does just the opposite. 


Coakley leaves quickly, hurrying through a reception downstairs, passing up the refreshments, shaking maybe a few hands on the way out. On the front steps, she rubs elbows with city councilors and School Committee members. She gives the mayor a comradely hug and a peck on the cheek. Then she is gone.

The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.

“Do you know where Coakley went?’’ a man asks. He wants to get another picture of her. He chases her black Ford Taurus and tries in vain to wave it down.

Relying on the purple shirt pinky ring brigade and hack machine while she avoids meeting voters.  How’s that strategy working out for you, Martha dear?

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’  “This is about getting people out on a cold Tuesday morning,’’ she says.

In the cold?  With those commoners?  At a sporting event? The horror!

She metes out details of her life sparingly outside the spotlight (“I love skiing, I love going to the beach, I love to spend time with my husband,’’ she told one television interviewer in a practiced delivery). She has spent a lot of time in the public eye, at homicide scenes, in courtrooms, announcing indictments or convictions. These duties, she says, have left little room for personality or levity.

“I understand that my role as US senator will be very different,’’ she says. “We’ll work on that.’’

She’ll work on appearing less frigid?  Not possible.

The positive mood is overshadowed by a poll that seems to suggest the gap between Coakley and Brown is closing.

“We do have a race,’’ she tells supporters, urging them to mobilize voters. “If we do not understand that we have a race, then we will not win it.’’

It is as close to fiery as she has come in a week of public appearances. The real fire is reserved for a small meeting of local officials, behind closed doors, in a room next to the rally.

“Massachusetts needs Martha Coakley to be the next senator!’’ she says, her voice rising. “There is no way in hell Massachusetts is going to send a Republican to Washington!’’

The 10 people in the room holler, cheer, and applaud. They believe her.

Welcome to hell, Martha.

Shocka! Boston Globe Poll Has Coakley Leading Brown By 15 Points

I don’t buy it.  It’s old, there is no breakdown of party affiliation and it’s the Boston Globe so don’t worry.  This is the Globe’s screaming headline today and it is meant to discourage Brown supporters from voting.

The poll, conducted Jan. 2 to 6, sampled the views of 554 randomly selected likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points. 

Which would bring it closer to the Rasmussen numbers.   Until we see a breakdown of party affilitation I am ignoring this because it just does not jive with what I’m seeing and hearing on the ground here.

Update:  Read the comments on the Globe site.  Nobody elese is buying it and the Globe trashing is classic.

Boston Globe Lectures Massachusetts Rubes For Shopping In Tax Free New Hampshire

In this snide editorial, the Boston Globe looks down its nose at the misguided, unenlightened Massachusetts citizens who cross the border to take advantage of tax free shopping.

While it’s not surprising to hear of Massachusetts consumers buying TVs and other big-ticket taxable items in New Hampshire, a Methuen resident told a reporter that she also buys her groceries north of the border. Meanwhile, one South Boston resident said that “I just went up there [to New Hampshire] to buy a pair of running shoes last week because I just wasn’t willing to pay the taxes.’’ But wait a minute. The first $175 of the price of clothing items, including running shoes, is tax-free in Massachusetts. So are grocery items.

WRONG.  Not all grocery items are tax free.  If you can’t eat it, it’s not tax free.  Cleaning supplies, laundry detergent, paper products, soda (deposit), floral items etc. are all taxable.  So that Methuen resident is actually saving a bundle when she buys her groceries in New Hampshire.  And some sneakers do cost more than $175 so perhaps this Southie resident was splurging.  

And don’t you silly rubes know that some New Hampshire towns have higher property taxes than yours? 

Many New Hampshire towns have higher property taxes than their Massachusetts counterparts; others skimp on municipal services. In Massachusetts, the sales tax hike prevented deeper cuts to vital human services and to public schools that are, by many measures, the nation’s best.

I wonder if they were promised lower property taxes by their governor only to see them increase every year since he took office?

Finally, you ungrateful bumpkins should be thankful that there isn’t a tax on food or clothing.

At least Massachusetts has exempted the necessities of life from the sales tax. Political statements aside, there is no financial reason to burn the gasoline and time necessary to buy them elsewhere.

Not only are you misguided, but you are killing the polar bears while shopping tax-free. 

This illustrates perfectly the disconnect between the bow-tie wearing, chardonnay sipping Globe editorial board and those of us who are struggling to make ends meet and find the recent 25% increase in the sales tax so odious or so burdensome that we are willing to drive north to save money – even if it is only a few dollars.  It is lectures such as this that make people more apt to get in the cars and leave Massachusetts retailers in their dust.

Boston Globe Snubs Coakley And Capuano, Endorses Khazei For Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat

Bad news for the Hackorama.  It seems as though even the editorial staff at the Boston Globe recognizes a hack when they see one.  Or two, in this case. 

With high hopes, the Globe endorses Alan Khazei, the prime mover behind national-service policies, as Massachusetts’ best chance to produce another great senator.

Khazei promises to apply the same principles to other issues, believing that building a grass-roots network for change while demonstrating both commitment and a willingness to compromise in pursuit of common ground can break down political barriers. This isn’t just hopeful rhetoric. Khazei speaks admiringly of streetwise education reformers who, having seen challenging conditions in urban classrooms, dreamed up such innovations as charter schools and Teach for America. Along the way, these activists had to elbow their way around established interest groups that tried to squeeze them out of the policy debate. With the support of an energetic and idealistic senator, public policy can flourish.

The 48-year-old Khazei offers a strong vision for success in the Senate, channeling the energy of activist groups and private-sector policy incubators while dedicating himself to the laborious task of building legislative coalitions.

He offers a time-tested and relevant example of this approach: his two decades of work bringing together politicians of both parties and citizen-activists to develop a national service plan. The recent service bill named for Kennedy and providing for 250,000 volunteers in a domestic Peace Corps is largely the fruit of his labors.

Khazei will not be getting my vote, but this really is delicious.

Wow. Boston Globe Not Down With Obama’s Olympic Pitch. UPDATE: Olympics Snub Obama in First Round

I think I just saw a flying pig over Morrissey Boulevard.

Acting as if he were head of the Chicago chamber of commerce, not the leader of the United States, President Obama is traveling hat in hand to meet with the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen today. He’s pushing for his hometown to host the 2016 Games. In case the judges aren’t obama salesmandazzled by him and his wife, Michelle, he’s got Oprah Winfrey to help seal the deal. Chicago has much to gain from the Olympics, and no doubt all Americans would love to see the Games on US soil. Obama may help deliver the prize. But he risks diminishing the prestige of his office by mobilizing it behind this narrow cause. And it seems at least possible that some judges will feel so put off by his hard sell that they’ll opt for one of the other finalists.

Obama gained support during the presidential campaign by staying cool amid an economic meltdown, while John McCain marched into Washington in an attempt to show a spirit of action. Instead, McCain showed his futility. Americans don’t like to see their leaders appearing rash or weak. If the Olympic committee rejects the president, Obama becomes just another failed salesman. It’s a mistake for him to sink so much into a cause that may not even need his help. He should have stayed home.

Doesn’t the editorial staff at the Globe understand the supreme sacrifice Michelle and Barry made by jetting to Copenhagen with makeup artists, stylists, handlers, personal chefs and the other O – as in Oprah?

UPDATE: The salesman in chief failed miserably.

Jacoby: ‘Democracy’ is a dirty word for Obama

Jeff Jacoby is the lone voice of reason at the Boston Globe.

It’s worth a full read, but here are some snippets:

THE CHOICE presented by the democracy protests in Iran could hardly have been clearer.

So why was President Obama’s response initially so ambivalent? Why was he more interested in preserving “dialogue’’ with Iran’s dictatorial rulers than in providing moral support for their freedom-seeking subjects? Why did it take him until yesterday to declare that Americans are “appalled and outraged’’ by Iran’s crackdown and to “strongly condemn’’ the vicious attacks on peaceful dissenters?

A disconcerting answer to those questions appears in the new issue of Commentary, where Johns Hopkins University scholar Joshua Muravchik isolates the most striking feature of the young Obama administration’s foreign policy: “its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy.’’


The rupture was telegraphed at a pre-inauguration meeting with the Washington Post, during which the incoming president argued that “freedom from want and freedom from fear’’ are more urgent than democracy, and that “oftentimes an election can just backfire’’ if corruption isn’t fixed first. Muravchik points out that when Obama gave Al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language satellite channel, his first televised interview as president, he focused on US relations with the Middle East and Muslim world, yet “never mentioned democracy or human rights.’’

In February, Obama traveled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., to announce his timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. His strategic goal, he said, was “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.’’ But other than a glancing reference to the successful Iraqi election that had taken place a few weeks earlier, he again had nothing to say about democracy.
In closing, Jacoby writes:
Obama may see himself as the un-Bush, cool to democracy because his predecessor was so keen for it. But to millions of subjugated human beings, he is the leader of the free world – an avatar of the democratic freedoms they hunger for. On the streets of Iran recently, many protesters held signs reading “Where Is My Vote?’’ There are limits to what the American president can do for Iran’s beleaguered democrats. But is it too much to ask that he take their question seriously?
Judging from what has been revealed today, I dare say it is too much to ask in Obama’s book.