The election today in Massachusetts is fascinating because of the national repercussions, because people are viewing it as a referendum on President Obama, and because Americans never get tired of a good underdog story.

And let’s be clear, Scott Brown’s rise from being the no-chance-in-hell candidate to the hey-he-might-actually-win-this-thing candidate—in one short month—is a great underdog story.

All that aside, tomorrow’s election is also fascinating for another reason: how incredibly bad Martha Coakley has been as a candidate.  She’s condescending, aloof, dishonest, and almost cartoonishly ill-informed.  “Little Sure Shot” she’s not.  During the one debate she acquiesced to, she said the following in response to the question, “How do you think we succeed in Afghanistan?”

“I'm not sure there is a way to succeed.”

Not a good answer.  Here’s the main thing about being a candidate for high office: you are supposed to have solutions.  Why else would people vote for you instead of the homeless bum lying on the sidewalk out front?  That guy probably doesn’t have solutions either but at least by sending a bum to Washington they’d be returning him to the mother ship.

She wasn’t done with her answer.  She had more wisdom:

“If the goal was—and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

Huh?  Whoever she was referring to, Taliban or terrorists, they’re not gone from Afghanistan.  On December 30 Al Qaeda terrorist Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi killed 7 CIA officers with a suicide bomb in Afghanistan.  One of those officers, a Massachusetts native, was buried in nearby Bolton just two days before the debate.  The very same day as the debate, three U.S. servicemen were killed in Afghanistan.

It’s bad enough admitting that you have no solutions.  Making it clear that you’re ignorant about the nature of the problem is even worse.

The point here is that Democrats constantly find and run this kind of candidate.  Martha Coakley has absolutely no qualifications to be a United States Senator, but she wants the job because it’s a promotion from what she’s doing now, she’s paid her dues in the Democrat machine, and she figures it’s her turn.  Once nominated she didn’t bother campaigning because, like so many Democrat-held congressional seats across the country, nomination is tantamount to election if you’re a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

Politicians like Coakley represent the Democrat machine, not the voters.  For example, polls show that Massachusetts voters are against the healthcare legislation being debated in congress but Coakley has promised to vote for the legislation.  They don’t even have a finished bill in Washington yet and she’s promising to vote for it!

The message is clear: she doesn’t care what the bill is because her vote was pledged to the Party in return for the nomination.  Screw you, voters.

This isn’t her first time showing how disconnected she is from the people of Massachusetts.  While a majority of the state’s residents still oppose gay marriage five years after the state legalized it, as state attorney general she instigated a lawsuit against the federal Defense of Marriage Act… which begs the question of who she thought she was representing by spending the state’s money suing the federal government.

Screw you again, voters.

Coakley’s biggest black mark of all is the way she handled the Gerald Amirault case.  Gerald Amirault was the only male member of a family victimized by prosecutorial misconduct and the 1980’s day care sex abuse hysteria.  He spent 18 years in prison for sex abuse charges which were so ludicrous that reviewing judges and the Massachusetts Parole Board recommended that he receive commutation of his sentence.  Martha Coakley lobbied the governor to refuse the request for clemency and Gerald Amirault stayed in prison.

There is no way to overstate this.  This man’s life was turned into a living hell even though no sane reviewer of the facts could possibly conclude that he committed any crime, and Coakley’s refusal to allow even the slightest remediation of that hell was pure, selfish, unadulterated evil.  Coakley did what machine politicians do: she represented the machine instead of the people.  She chose to protect the Democrat-machine prosecutors who were guilty of the abuses which sent Mr. Amirault to prison.

Screw you, Mr. Amirault.

Liberals defend Coakley on this matter by spinning a fantasy about a conscientious prosecutor eager to make sure the state was safe from potential child abusers.  Unfortunately for the spin, there is another sex abuse case which provides uncomfortable verification of what Martha Coakley is and what she represents as a human being and politician.

This is uncomfortable subject matter, but bear with me.

The Amiraults—Gerald, his mother, and his sister—were accused of horrendous sexual abuse of children, including raping a child with a butcher knife and other monstrous acts, all of which somehow never left any physical injury or evidence, and all of which were introduced into children’s overactive imaginations by an eager-to-convict and unethical prosecution team.

Common sense says that raping a child with a butcher knife would leave some injuries but machine politicians like Coakley don’t operate with common sense.  In 2005, Coakley, then a district attorney, ran into another case where a 2-year-old girl was raped with a hot curling iron.  This time the little girl had obvious injuries and in fact spent a month in the hospital recovering from burns.  Her uncle, Keith Winfield, was ultimately convicted, but not while Coakley was district attorney.  She refused to prosecute and then when the little girl’s family pressed charges on their own, she refused to ask for bail and let the man go free until his trial.

You have to ask yourself why there was such a difference between her handling of Gerald Amirault and Keith Winfield.  The answer is simple: unlike the prosecution team which convicted them, the Amiraults were not part of the Democrat machine and therefore, in Martha Coakley’s world, deserved no consideration of any kind; unlike the Amiraults, Keith Winfield was a police officer and therefore part of the machine, which means he got every benefit of the doubt and every consideration from the district attorney.

A despicable sadistic twisted child rapist was allowed to roam the streets of Massachusetts free as a bird for two years, doing God knows what, but did Little Annie Coakley care?  Screw you, people of Massachusetts.

Who knows where the Democrat Party finds these people.  “Little Sure Shot” Coakley has insulted hockey fans, called Red Sox hero Curt Shilling a Yankee fan, and told Catholics they shouldn’t work in hospitals, which is pretty much the trifecta of bone headedness in a state which loves hockey, the Red Sox, and the Pope.

She has also been caught flagrantly lying about a pushing incident with a reporter, and has generally acted like answering questions and connecting with the people of Massachusetts are beneath her.

You would think her low nature as a human being and her haughty disconnect from the people she aspires to represent would make her a sure-shot loser in tomorrow’s election… but that’s not how it usually works in a Democrat-machine state.  By hook or crook, the machine generally wins.  If Massachusetts could abide Ted Kennedy for four decades, they can probably be convinced to accept Martha Coakley… but doggone it, wouldn’t it be nice if Martha Coakley lost today, sending a message to political machines everywhere?

It’s a wonderful thought.


From Reno, Nevada, USA

January 19, 2010 - Great piece, but you left out another case where Coakley served up injustice. As a district attorney she prosecuted a case against grandparents whose daughter "dreamed" that she was abused as a child. This whack-job daughter subsequently hired child psychologists who elicted fantastic stories of abuse from her own daughter... by the grandparents. The stories involved a cage in the basement that was never found, a huge room-sized multi-colored machine that would rape she and her cousin (this machine was also never found), and revelations about how Grandpa and Grandma would stick their whole heads into the little girls' vaginas. All this, and yet the little girls' hymens were both still intact and they showed no evidence of any abuse whatsoever. Coakley zealously prosecuted the case anyway, and the grandparents - both of them - went to prison. Coakley is a dangerous nutjob interested in nothing but advancing her own career. - Ted, Boston

J.P. replies: You're talking about the Souzas.  I looked it up when I received your comment.  You're right, their story should have been included in my column.  It's an unbelievable story.

January 18, 2010 - A+, plus, PLUS, J.P. I wish every Massachusetts voter could read this. - Katherine, Reno

January 18, 2010 - Thanks for shedding more light on why Scott Brown has to pull off the upset for the people of Massachusetts. I came from Chicago and know what the "Daley Machine" has managed to do for certain voters (or not, for others) over the years. God Bless you for being another voice for independent conservatism in America. - Mary Ellen, Reno

January 18, 2010 - Hi there... I can't leave your site. It is a site that I have been wanting to start for sometime now. Way to go!.. This works! I'll pass it along. - LiAnne, Connecticut