Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Coakley: I'm not privy to the facts."

Martha Coakley responds to questions about the scuffle between one of her aides and reporter John McCormack of The Weekly Standard.   Here is a photo from the scuffle that puts Coakley's response in context:

I was coming out of an event, I talked with press, I went to a gaggle not unlike this, although it was outside and in the dark. I went to go because I had to get back to the airport."

I know there were people following, including people from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking. I'm not sure what happened.  I know something occurred.  I'm not privy to the facts. I'm sure it will come out, but I'm not aware of that."

"I do know the Scott Brown stalkers who have followed me around, and the people at that press conference who were for very right-leaning publications, were incredible aggressive about trying to get in my face. I didn't see what happened so I can't say."
Gee anyone think the choice of the word stalking was deliberate?  When you are running for a seat in the US Senate in a hot special election you'd think it might be expected that members of the press would be looking for a quote or a comment.  Add the fact that Coakley was emerging from a fundraiser hosted by a slew of health care lobbyists it is reasonable to expect intense interest in any news from the event.  Still Martha chooses to characterize the interest as "stalking" and ties the reporter to a "very right leaning publication."

Coakley can play all she wants with optics and sound bites but the reality is she was an eye witness to some really rough handling by one of her aides of a member of the press.  Here is a video of the scuffle that clearly shows plenty of rough handling:

Notice in the picture above Coakley clearly sees the reporter on the ground and the video shows the reporter being roughed up after he is helped up. Was Coakley so disinterested she didn't follow what happened after she witnessed the reporter falling to the ground? This is the woman who is currently the Attorney General for the State of Massachusetts mind you.

If Brown had supporters in Washington, no evidence is presented other than Coakley's assertion she is being "stalked." Perhaps Coakley is a bit jealous that Brown has passionate support while she is left paying union workers to hold up signs and gin up the appearance of enthusiasm for her candidacy. Fleming and Hayes has coverage of a union worker admitting he is being paid $50 to hold up a sign but "shhhh" he plans to vote for Brown.

Interesting side note: the Hayes of Fleming and Hayes is none other than Shane Hayes who was featured in my post highlighting Coakley's "call your sister" foreign policy experience. Small world, I had no clue he was a blogger when I chose that particular exchange. I just loved the jokes. The Fleming and Hayes report was featured in a post by Michelle Malkin too.


  1. Is it really that shocking that liberals resort to thuggish tactics and seem disinterested when the other side is treated like this? It isn't to me- Republicans aren't saints, but things like this destroy their careers and you never hear from them again.

  2. No, it isn't all that shocking. You raise one reason why this is important, the double standard for the left. Coakley is afraid and off her game, whatever that is, for the last week of the race. She is making mistakes and this is yet another factor breaking Brown's way. I continually think of this race in terms of the fable The Tortoise and the Hare. If only Aesop could write the ending here, Brown would surely win.

  3. This is so immature. But I have to say that the picture is funny.


Related Posts with Thumbnails
Web Analytics