January 13, 2010

Why am I avoiding ShoveGate?

There's this story acting like it's a big deal, and I've been avoiding it. Why? Because after watching the video twice, I can't tell what really happened. Witness accounts vary. Apparently, there was a bustle in a tight space, with the reporter — John McCormack — trying to get at the candidate — Marsha Coakley — and the Democratic staffer — Michael Meehan — doing something — maybe just trying to protect her and create space around her, maybe deliberately shoving McCormack, or maybe something in between. So, I guess I'm not avoiding it anymore. I just want to say I think it's a distraction. (And I hate the tendency to call things a distraction!) I don't think it has any value in helping Massachusetts voters decide whether to vote for Coakley.

ADDED: I'm getting comments and email about Meehan's "apology." Shouldn't that change my view? Absolutely not! I can read:
Last evening I was a little too aggressive in trying to help the Attorney General get to her car and catch a flight.

I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence.  As the video shows and he confirms in his blog, I stopped to help him up and make sure he was OK.

I talked with Mr. McCormack this afternoon and apologized for my part.
He does not admit to shoving McCormack here. He apologized the way we all apologize when we bump into somebody.  Saying you're sorry they got shoved is no admission that you hurt them on purpose. There's nothing in Meehan's statement that is inconsistent with the original post.

MORE: An emailer writes:
But the word was not "careless", it was not "clumsy", it was "aggressive".

Even the rest of the disclaimer supports my interpretation. He does not deny shoving, or intending to shove. He only denies intending to cause a fall:

"I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence."

So, we have video which you find inconclusive but which seems at least to indicate contact. We have the reporter saying the contact was a shove. We have the Coakley campaign first saying the fall was a stunt -- not that it was an accident. And then we have have the man accused of shoving saying he was "too aggressive" and carefully not denying it was a shove.
ADDED: This video does, in fact, make Meehan (and Coakley) look very bad.

84 comments:

David said...

Generally I agree with you but it tells me something about Coakley that she claims not to have seen an event that video shows occurred right in front of her.

David said...

To continue, I don't give a damn whether he pushed the pushy reporter down. Occupational hazard. But I do care about her lying.

It's the coverup--always the coverup.

Lem said...

I don't think it has any value in helping Massachusetts voters decide whether to vote for Coakley.

If the Brown people had done this the MSM would be all over it.

traditionalguy said...

It was a test of Coakley's attitude towards media people outside of the Democrat Aristocracy's bubble of super majority she was in DC promising to preserve. Neitzche would approve of her strong approach in running over any weak opponent who cannot like her party vote trillions of dollars of stolen/borrowed fiat money issued with a guarantee by our family's assets wherever they damn well say.

Henry said...

You should have kept ignoring it.

AllenS said...

The shover has apologized to the shovee. Officially.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Lem said...

If the Brown people had done this...

What if it was the light-skinned Brown people?

vbspurs said...

It's a newsworthy story if:

- You care about the freedom of the press to ask candidates questions about their platform, without being intimidated, especially physically.

- You care if a candidate sees thuggery around her from her staffers or supporters, and says nothing.

- You care if originally said candidate tried to paint the reporter as the aggressor or a stooge of the opposing political party, and it was a lie on her part.

- You care if the campaign operative later acknowledges he did indeed act aggressively, and shoved the reporter, contradicting his earlier account.

- You care if the President of said shared Party said that politics wouldn't be business as usual: that it would be bipartisan, transparent, and free of lobbyists calling the shots.

(And the candidate involved were coming from a pricey lobbyist led fundraiser)

In short, no one can tell a person what they can care about, but this story is certainly newsworthy for all its angles.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

wv: Obane! Yes, Obama is a bane on the nation.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that it was bad that the Coakley guy pushed the reporter down onto the ground. But I think it even worse maybe that she ignored it, as it happened, right in front of her, as evidenced by the photos we have seen.

Yes, politics is hardball, but the highest law enforcement officer in the state of Mass. ignored a crime that occurred right in front of her - because it benefited her. That doesn't say anything positive about her character.

But, then, this is for the Senate, and is maybe par for the course - which is part of why the approval rating for Congress is barely above the Y axis.

Henry said...

Nothing elevates it beyond a he said, he said contretemps, and both of the he's involved agree on everything but intent. I'm completely unimpressed by the attempts to build a great scaffolding of outrage on such a foundation of sand.

Bruce Hayden said...

I should note that the crime occurred outside of Coakley's jurisdiction, which may absolve her somewhat of legal and ethical misadventure.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Apology apology, so what! While that's a "nice" gesture, the shove and Meehan's subsequent actions were assault. Please that one photo showing Coakley standing by in front of her thug's assault on McCormack are telling about her wiliness to accept thuggery on the part of her campaign.

Plus: what Lem said!

Lastly, Althouse is letting her latent Obama support show with her wiliness to dive into this mess!

Lem said...

Victoria for president ;)

Nichevo said...

Also, Meehan is an Obama nominee for some prestigious press panel, something about ensuring a free press. Is irony newsworthy?

Garage, FLS, MM, Ritmo et al are so proud of you for shutting up, Ann. Bask in their praise.

Tom Tucker said...

I'm from Mass, and I love this. Martha has never had to get her hands even remotely dirty. These types of things simply do not happen to her! That's the real pleasure. As for a scandal, seems pretty tame other than shining the spotlight on her yet again in an unflattering light.

vbspurs said...

Lastly, Althouse is letting her latent Obama support show with her wiliness to dive into this mess!

I don't believe that for a second, Old Grouchy!

I'd much sooner believe that Ann doesn't like to be led to a blogstory by force (maybe not this story, but I've noticed yes in others) by her readers, than anything approaching any lingering Hopenchangism.

vbspurs said...

Hola Lem! Gracias for the shoutout in theDC. For obvious reasons, I don't reply since I don't want anyone there to know my first name. ;)

Bruce Hayden said...

Nothing elevates it beyond a he said, he said contretemps, and both of the he's involved agree on everything but intent. I'm completely unimpressed by the attempts to build a great scaffolding of outrage on such a foundation of sand.

I like the latest talking point - oh, it was an accident. Well, maybe. Maybe Meehan was just trying to protect Coakley and keep the reporter away from her, and his shove accidentally caused the reporter to fall down. I would almost buy that. But that still doesn't explain why he was shoving an accredited reporter. It was still civil battery and criminal assault. And the reporter claims that Meehan didn't stop after helping him back up to his feet, but rather kept jossling him.

The Drill SGT said...

Victoria said...- You care if the campaign operative later acknowledges he did indeed act aggressively, and shoved the reporter, contradicting his earlier account.

I think you need to add, reporter, clearly known to the campaign as a reporter, after the knock-down, gets further accosted and assaulted by a "private citizen" on a public street who demands to see the reporters credentials while shoving him into a wall in front of Coakley.

This wasn't a jostling accident. It was thuggery.

PS: add to that, the Thug is an Obama nominee to the BBG board where he will oversee our VOA campaign into countries where the locals kill the offending press.

His confirmation hearings should be interesting

Lem said...

I don't want anyone there to know my first name

You got it love.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think you need to add, reporter, clearly known to the campaign as a reporter, after the knock-down, gets further accosted and assaulted by a "private citizen" on a public street who demands to see the reporters credentials while shoving him into a wall in front of Coakley.

I do wonder why the Coakley people thought that they had a legal right to ask the reporter for his identification in the first place, given the location of the event.

I am enough of a contrarian that I would probably have volunteered to trade identifications. But that would have likely resulted in further problems.

Peter V. Bella said...

Much ado about nothing. If the reporter felt he was shoved and he was a real man he would have cracked the shover into next Tuesday.

Reporters are such weenies these days.

info said...

Uhhh...except that both parties have agreed publicly that the reporter was SHOVED to the ground by the Coakly thug...yes he ADMITTS!!!

Other than that...hard to tell...sheeeesh.

Liberals....

traditionalguy said...

This could be the start of a new jobs program for posse members that accompany Democrat Aristocrats in public. It is a Shove ready project. And all of their new Brown Shirt Uniforms can be manufactured here in the USA. Even Nancy Pelossi cannot turn this one down, although she will probably need a second USAF Gulfstream G-5 aircraft designated to transport her squad of thugs back and forth to the left coast.

Big Mike said...

@Lem, Victoria can't be President. She's not native-born.

Lem said...

She's not native-born.

It didnt stop Obama.

JAL said...

And the reporter claims that Meehan didn't stop after helping him back up to his feet, but rather kept jossling him.

This part -- the contact sport afterwards -- clearly is shown if you keep watching the video after the crowd scene. The pusher says "Are you alright?" (or WTTE) -- because Coakley has stopped to look? (She may not have seen him shoved.) If you watch the video really careful you see the someone throw his left shoulder and arm at the guy who disdappears. I am sure the video magic guys can lighten it up so you can sort out the shove more clearly.

The pushing the reporter into the side of the building (could have put him through one of those windows, the way he was shoving him) is very clear.

And totally, totally, totally uncalled for.

The Dem guy is demanding ID on a public street, where there are other people. The reporter is holding his recorder and his other hand in the air (and his ID) -- so it is clear who is doing the shoving there.

So did Meehan apologize for THAT? I don't think so.

And Ms. Barbara Boxer Wannabe doesn't have to answer any questions.

You poor Massachusetteans -- take a good look what you might get.

Big Mike said...

Now I've looked at the video twice myself, and my own take is that the reporter was deliberately shoved by the party operative, but said operative may not have meant to knock him down. In fact I'll go so far as to say that the shove would not normally have knocked down a grown man, but with the fence there it may have had a larger affect then expected.

Coakley's response has me puzzled. I would have expected the candidate, once she saw that her operative had knocked down somebody -- press or not, it doesn't matter -- to have gone over and made a show of concern. But I've only ever worked on local campaigns, so perhaps the "rules of engagement" for statewide office are different? Or maybe it's as simple as Coakley being phenomenally insensitive, or slow on the uptake, or some mix of both.

I did notice -- as I commented on a different thread -- that the AP couldn't wait to get that operative's story out as the definitive description of what happened.

Bryant Likes said...

I've avoiding it

I think this is the first typo I've seen on your blog. :)

Big Mike said...

@Lem, let's not go there, please.

My own suspicion, and it's quite possible I'm wrong, is that the President's original birth certificate showed the mother as being unwed. So for me, I'd rather see the marriage license.

But it doesn't really matter because by now we are all (well, a clear majority of us) completely aware that Barack Obama really is a b*st*rd.

knox said...

I'm completely unimpressed by the attempts to build a great scaffolding of outrage on such a foundation of sand.

Maybe. The shover has apologized, which tells me he overdid it, at the very least.

Johanna Lapp said...

Every second Coakley spends addressing this minor thuggery is a second she can't be insulting the character and intelligence of Massachusetts independent voters.

Michael said...

Meehan may not have intentionally pushed the man to the ground, but he was clearly "hip checking" him away from the candidate, and he continued physically to block him from proceeding down the street (the video shows four or five contacts). This is thuggery, and for Coakley to say she doesn't have the facts when the Herald has a picture of her staring at the man on the ground is ludicrous.

Nichevo said...

Nonsense. If he'd put him on the ground accidentally, he wouldn't be playing point guard with him after he got up. Obvious really.

I suppose Althouse, being a chick, has never had a hand laid on her in anger in her life, and doesn't understand violence.

I wonder if Meehan sought a physical response. I would have cracked his skull. But that might have been the idea.

knox said...

For me, this is just like the Great Harry Reid Negro Dialect Affair. Everyone on the right regularly has had to swallow great big doses of PC, Lefty righteous outrage on the most trifling matters. (Don Imus comes immediately to mind.)

Was this little scuffle really such a big deal? No. But what goes around comes around, bitches.

Seriously, I think it's healthy for our country for the Left to have to be on the defensive every now and then.

vbspurs said...

It didnt stop Obama.

LOL!!

vbspurs said...

Hey, if that proposed amendment to overturn the "natural born" qualification didn't go anywhere, preventing Schwarzenegger for running for US President, then I'll happily give up on my own presidential aspirations.

I consider it a small price to pay to keep that phony Austrian Rethuglican out of 1600.

El Pollo Real said...

The Althouse Uncertainty Principle:

Why am I avoiding ShoveGate

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Misspellings can be fortuitous but what I really meant to say was that Althouse was "unwilling" to dive into this affair. However, she's very wily at all times!

Plus has that "Anonymous" person said about Herr ReThuglican way out west.

c3 said...

Coakley's non-response is what's disturbing. Doesn't she realize cameras are running.

The Crack Emcee said...

It's politics, Ann, just like the Harry Reid shit. People trying, desperately, to gain an advantage over nothing important.

I despise this sort of thing. It does a disservice to politics and reveals the immaturity that exists within our process. These are children who actually stand for nothing. They have nothing to say and will do nothing for the rest of us. The whole charade throws us back to the nonsense of the '08 election, where nothing of substance was openly discussed either.

None of it speaks well of us as a people.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Wait a sec... Didn't this same Weekly Standard reporter ask a question in the earlier press conference that Coakley ignored? I think it was whether she stood by her previous remarks that there were "no more terrorists in Afghanistan".

I think it was the asking of this question that led to the altercation outside. It seems that Meehan shoved the reporter to keep in from coming near Coakley so that she wouldn't have to ignore his (entirely justified) question a second time.

edutcher said...

I think Ann is approaching this as a lawyer; rules of evidence and all that.

What I love is that this was occasioned by Maatha being asked about her statement that there are no terrorists in A-stan; and, if the Establishment Media had gone after that statement the way they did when Jerry Ford said Poland was autonomous from the Soviet Union, none of this would have happened. As it is, this makes her look worse than if she'd just had to "clarify" sticking her foot in her mouth, which, I have a hunch, she'll have to do anyway.

AllenS said...

The shover has apologized to the shovee. Officially.

In the words of a great American tactician, "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness". It also tends to indicate you did something shameful.

traditionalguy said...

This could be the start of a new jobs program for posse members that accompany Democrat Aristocrats in public. It is a Shove ready project.

I love it! The only problem might be that Maatha's thug was in violation of SEIU rules.

Big Mike said...

Now I've looked at the video twice myself, and my own take is that the reporter was deliberately shoved by the party operative, but said operative may not have meant to knock him down.

Don't matter, compadre, it's still assault.

bagoh20 said...

Ok, if a candidate that happens to be the A.G. hires thugs connected to the President and they just happen to assault the one press person asking one of the most important questions in the campagn and then she lies about it = just a distraction, but hey, Brown is really cute and was naked once along time ago. I really need more clarification on that reasoning.

I would have similar problem regardless of which candidate was hiring the thugs to intimidate the press. And that IS what he was doing. The thug knew this guy was a reporter and he knew the only danger was the question he was asking.

That matters dammit! We don't want people who use these tactics wielding government power, do we?

We shouldn't even talk about it? No wonder you were satisfied with what you knew about Obama; you don't want to know much.

bagoh20 said...

If you don't have a problem with the kind of union thuggery we have been seeing lately then get ready for more of it and the violence used to combat it, because if we ignore it in our election decisions, then we are leaving it up to violent redress and that would be a shame and it will be our fault.

Terrie said...

What Victoria said.

It took me a few replays to make out what happened on a dark, crowded sidewalk. But you can see Meehan walking up quickly behind McCormack and his arms thrusting forward just before McCormack falls. You certainly can't miss Meehan trying to block and intimidate McCormack afterward. McCormack's offense was trying to elicit a comment from a candidate in a high profile election and he was not alone on the sidewalk in that pursuit.

It's thuggery of the newsworthy kind that may influence the election - and it was captured on video.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

At Meehan's confirmation hearing, Senator Stuart Smiley will ask whether the takedown was a hockey hip check or a wrestling bounce into the ropes? At which time, Senator smiley will compare Meehan's efforts to Smiley's while he was reporting on the 2004 Republican convention.

wv: packmin to maximum capacity.

lucid said...

The Attorney General--chief law enforcement officer of her state--letting a paid colleague rough up a member of the press with whose views she disagress--that seems like it has some probative value in assessing who Coakley is and what kind of senator she would be.

Saying that you can't really see what is going on is frankly unconvincing.

Just Lurking said...

I was with you Althouse, regarding the ambiguity as to what happened. But then the shover apologized. That tells me he knows he did something wrong. That, plus upon watching the video again, it sure looks like the shover is body checking the reporter in an aggressive manner.

Coakley is running for public office... she should EXPECT to answer questions from reporters, especially when she says boneheaded things like there are no more Taliban in Afghanistan.

As others have said, I think the issue of intimidating the press in order to prevent them from asking tough questions is very important; worthy of discussion and condemnation when it occurs.

I'm willing to give Coakley the benefit of the doubt that she didn't sanction Mehan's behavior (even though I won't be voting for her). But I'm also glad people are making a big deal of this event, even if it is an overreaction. I prefer that, than to have it ignored, and embolden other politicians who may be thinking about hiring goons to intimidate reporters.

Just Lurking said...

Oh, and a belated happy birthday!

Fred4Pres said...

Martha Coakley said Bucky Dent is still dreamy.

Nichevo said...

I despise this sort of thing.

Crack, if they're not called on it, there will be more and worse. Do you want that?

There are millions of people in the US with the equipment and the ability to hit Coakley or Meehan at three hundred yards.

THAT'S THE NEXT FUCKING STEP. With a possible intermediate stage of hand-to-hand, i.e., sending out reporters in the goon's weight class.

Republicans will win that contest. And I happen to think think Meehan would look well with a sucking chest wound, or with the muzzle of a .38 in his arrogant mouth while he kneels begging for his wicked, miserable life. Nor would he be the only one.

The fact that I prefer we stop short of that is therefore a considerable sacrifice of short-term interest to the social contract. In return all I ask is that the hands-on bullies get reeled in. Too much? Or are you one who wants to head straight for the jungle?

I seem to remember a lot of fuss over one or two tea partiers who showed up to the rallies armed. What I also remember was a bunch of actual - real not potential, yet unfussed - goon violence by SEIU and Panther types, before that. After that, not so much. Wonder why? No you don't.

Again, this is Jovian lenience. If the choice is a) 'us' sucking up a steady stream of beatings, or b) necklacing 'them' all, I vote for b).

It is, therefore, in everyone's interest (especially 'theirs') to see that in the event we have no a) and therefore no b).

What is the alternative? How are the Meehans to be stopped other than by stopping them? And how do you prefer this be done?

And that goes for you too, Ann. Eighty percent of the male population - more, given your age - is physically capable, one-on-one, of raping and murdering you without a weapon. Before you accept that you are a legitimate target for violence, maybe you ought to grant that others aren't.

Nichevo said...

I see bagoh explained this at least as well as I. Just remember, Professor, you will not be exempt. You will be dining on the very same can of worms. Leftists certainly aren't afraid to hit a lady, why should anyone else be?

Fen said...

The Crack Emcee: It's politics, Ann, just like the Harry Reid shit. People trying, desperately, to gain an advantage over nothing important.

SEIU Brownshirts assault a man for handing out political bumper stickers. Nothing important.

MoveOn Goons assualt an Obama protester, biting off his finger. Nothing important.

Coakley's Hired Thug assualts a journalist for asking tough questions. Nothing important.

Union Bullies hang Crack Emcee for voting the "wrong" way. Nothing important.

[...]

Look at the pattern, Crack. We're well on our way to a Crystal Night.

Fen said...

There are millions of people in the US with the equipment and the ability to hit Coakley or Meehan at three hundred yards.

1200 yards.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

N: I agree with what I understood to be your point! Right on and more!

The point is the Democrats are playing with dangerous fire! The rumblings coming out of that Commonwealth is that if Brown wins, his certification and swearing in will be delayed. If that happens, all bets are off because that'll mean that the current rules of somewhat fair play are gone. We always played by the fact our ability to win the next time around. If that goes away because the Democrats want to "win" this round at any price, then they're not aware of what that price is; our liberty, our country, our way of life, our future as a society; it's really that simple and that complex.

Win by promising the moon then delivering a pound of scheiss, that's within the rules we've used before, but don't do this Kirk/Coakley/Gavin steal because the price we'll all pay is too steep.

wv: beglar is something done in South Boston streets.

Beldar said...

Prof. Althouse, perhaps this Boston Herald story and -- especially -- the accompanying photo (proving Coakley a liar, if nothing else) will pique your interest.

Lem said...

Coakley has never been to Fenway Park..

To me thats a disqualification right there.

Bruce Hayden said...

Randy Balko asks: Is Martha Coakley committed to justice? And it turns out that she was heavily involved in sending the Amiraults to prison based on improper questioning of children, mass hysteria about sex abuse and Satan worship, and bogus “recovered-memory” psychotherapy.

Florida said...

Here's why it matters, Ann:

The Democrats are creating a society in which legitimate news reporters are being physically attacked by thugs operating at the behest of candidates.

Ask the wrong question, and you go on the list and "you know that's a nice arm you have there. Be a shame if anything bad happened to it."

Really, Ann ... you really want to live in that kind of a society.

You can't figure out what's happening here, Ann? Really? 300-pound union goons? You can't figure it out yet?

Grow up sweetheart. They're playing for keeps.

Democrats are surrounding themselves with 300-pound union goons, who have shown a willingness to get physical with anybody who asks the wrong types of questions.

Now, you might want to live in a society where 300-pound goons stop reporters from asking Senate candidates questions; but I don't want to live in such a society.

And if you can't figure out what's going on, then you need to step away from political reporting.

You're dangerously stupid.

The Drill SGT said...

Fen said...
There are millions of people in the US with the equipment and the ability to hit Coakley or Meehan at three hundred yards.

1200 yards.


LOL, Fen "every Marine a rifleman" wants you to know that any Marine recruit can hit something at 500 yerds, and professionals manage 1200 :)

The Drill SGT said...

Althouse,

besides the Coakley half of the story, Meehan is an Obama nominee to the government board that attempts to defend freedom of the press overseas (BBG).

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.

To have him assaulting American free press would seem to be a disqualifying activity IMHO.

zTruth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pinkmonkeybird said...

Althouse.
Well of course you think it's a distraction.
Why would anyone who'd voted for Hope and Change think otherwise?

Fen said...

1930's Ann: Yes, I heard some goons forced two Jewish ladies down onto the pavement and ordered them to wash away some graffiti. I just want to say I think it's a distraction.

The Drill SGT said...

completely OT, but I found this phrase in a para from the Jounral Sentinel today. It must be a dairy land metaphor :)

So people assume, correctly, that the cost will fall on those with the least political juice. That's why middle-class people were shouting at Feingold this week. They aren't poor and sympathetic. They aren't rich enough to hire sharp tax lawyers. They aren't doctors who hire lobbyists; they aren't unions, owning lawmakers. Someone's going to get milked, and they sense a bucket headed their way.

Fred4Pres said...

Martha Coakley said she is glad to be going to D.C., so she can go watch the Baltimore Ravens more often. She wants season tickets. She is not into the Patriots.

vbspurs said...

Never mind ShoveGate. Martha Coakley just committed ritual political seppukku. She dissed Fenway.

"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."


What? ME? Stand around Fenway Park with those addlepated Red Sox fans, shaking their goddamned hands in the fricking cold???

Strike three, Martha. You're out.

Cheers,
Victoria

Fred4Pres said...

Martha Coakley refued to take action when Ted Williams' head was abused. She said, what do you want me to do about it? Who is Ted Williams?

Martha Coakley does know who Derek Jeter is and thinks he is cute.

Robin said...

with the reporter — John McCormack — trying to get at the candidate — Marsha Coakley

It would be funny if her name were actually Marsha. "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!"

vbspurs said...

"Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!"

I was thinking about that joke last night! Great minds, and all that.

vbspurs said...

Oh, Robin, incidentally our dear Ms. Coakley has trouble getting remembered by folks, even those on her side.

A Daily Kos diarist called her "Janet Coakley", to which I laughed like a loon. I thought the thought process involved Janet Incompetano.

Turns out the person is a prof, and he had a student (an athlete) with that name. Yeah, right.

One commenter said a mouthful in reply:

"You can tell she's in trouble

when even front pagers on Daily Kos, the premier political blog, can't remember her first name barely a month after she won the Democratic primary."

Cheers,
Victoria

Politics, Islamism and more... said...

Coakley ignored a question by the soon-to-be shovee (i.e., reporter) moments before.

So telling...

Robin said...

Or the diarist could have been thinking of Jan Brady.

Boston lawyers don't have trouble remembering her name, though. She's a notorious lightweight.

Christy said...

After looking at the Boston Herald article with pics of the candidates that Beldar linked, I find myself hoping that Coakley continues to wear and be photographed in that distinctive long gold scarf. Keeps reminding us of that scene in the dark where it showed up so well, doesn't it?

vbspurs said...

Heh, Jan Brady! It's a wonder she wasn't called Tom Coakley. :)

...and yes, I noticed that ugly velour tan scarf, and went, eww. It totally clashes with everything she's wearing. She's clearly been taking tips from Palin's dresser.

Fred4Pres said...

Ted Kennedy, Mansculpted!

AllenS said...

Meehan: "Last evening I was a little too aggressive"

Althouse: "He apologized the way we all apologize when we bump into somebody"

Yeah, you can read, but you seem to be unable to understand the difference.

WV: wineup

I kid you not!

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

"It's just an election!" "Those 150-ballots were just left in the trunk of my car!" "There'll be another election soon!" "It's 'Win Baby, Win!'"

Those quotes sound kind of trite to me now, especially the ones originating from the 2008 Minnesota senate election.

Well, Jews everywhere have a saying, which I subscribe to: "Never again!" There were all kinds of excuses when Europe's Jews went to the gas chambers in a non-violent way but never again.

Yep, someone out there is saying Coakley/Brown isn't the same thing as the Holocaust yet it's the start of a slippery slope down that path to God knows what. And God Forgive them for their stupidity but it's not just the Democrats that'll have their fingers burned in that potential fire, all of us will need buckets of ice water.

To the Democrats, politics is just a hardball game they practice but it's in fact our society our way of life they're endangering.

Fred4Pres said...

Police unions in Massachusetts support Scott Brown, reject Martha Coakley.

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lucid said...

@althouse--
I love you dearly, but when you are wrong you are wrong. watch the video. after the reporter has already fallen, the campaign consultant, who is much larger than the reporter, continues to push into him and physically press against him to block his way. this physical bullying is clearly a continuation, even after the fall and with the tacit collusion of coakley (see still photographs), of what he was doing when he caused the reporter to go into a raling and fall. there is not only the video, there is also the reporter's uncontradicted account, and the still photographs. the coakley consultant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, which is more of a standard than is required here.

wv: bitonar--a boutonniere that bites you; or, a campaign staffer for Massachusetts' democrats who buttonholes hostile reporters by biting them.

John Clifford said...

Look at the video... it's obvious that Meehan (batterer) deliberately comes up behind McCarthy (victim) and shoves him from behind into the rail hard enough to make him fall. I can't see from the video if he's deliberately tripped as he's shoved, or if his legs just got tangled, but the shove was pretty forceful.

Meehan did help McCarthy up afterwards, but continued to shove and restrain him. IMO his behavior is clearly illegal; you can't be touching people on a public sidewalk for no reason.

McCarthy should have filed charges against Meehan.

I don't think Coakley has any responsibility for Meehan's actions, but she should show her intolerance for such actions by firing him immediately. That she hasn't, and that she dissembled about what happened is an indication of her character, or lack thereof.