Martha’s Greatest Hits III: Coakley Unaccountable to Laws She’s Sworn to Enforce

Posted by Gary Hewson Jan 15th 2010 at 5:42 am in Featured Story, Politics | Comments (82)

Third of a series.  Find parts one here and two here.

Martha Coakley is caught making false statements on financial disclosure form, does not report  $262,000 in assets.
Now this is a story that only Charles Rangel could love.  One of Coakley’s selling points among the plutocratic liberals of the greater Boston area is that she’s honest, since unlike a lot of other politicians, she doesn’t seem to have enriched herself unduly while “serving” at the public trough.  As proof, she’s offered her financial-disclosure statements.

Oops!  From the Boston Globe last November:

Coakley admits to federal filing error

Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s top lawyer, acknowledged yesterday that she improperly filled out a federal financial disclosure she submitted to the US Senate as part of her candidacy in the special election.

The Globe reported yesterday that Coakley was the only candidate, in disclosures due to the Senate by this week, to report that neither she nor her spouse had any reportable financial asset worth more than $1,000.

But her campaign said Coakley failed to list $200,000 to $250,000 in financial assets that are held by her husband, Thomas F. O’Connor Jr. The campaign said Coakley also failed to note a retirement account she holds that is worth $12,000.

It was…… a somewhat embarrassing omission for a perceived front-runner who oversees the state’s legal affairs.

Naturally, a campaign spokeswoman dismissed the whole thing as “mistake” – Democrat-speak for “you got me!” – and promised to file amended returns “as quickly as possible” – Democrat-speak for “any time between Hell Freezes Over and Never.”
Are you getting the sense that Attorney General Coakley is not all that well-versed in the laws of her own state or those of the federal government?

Fourth of a series.  Find parts one, two and three here.  And don’t miss this report, either.
Martha Coakley declares that terrorists are “gone from Afghanistan” and has no idea the Taliban are either terrorists or our sworn enemies.
No one ever accused Martha Coakley of having any foreign-policy experience.  After all, as a career lawyer, prosecutor, state attorney general and lifelong Democrat party hack, the “Massachusette” can’t rationally be expected to be as up on the nuances of the “war on terror” as, say, Joe Biden.
Still, her remarks during her one debate with Scott Brown on January 11 should trouble anyone who hopes that a potential successor to the warm body currently occupying the deceased Lion of the Senate’s seat would have, shall we say, a greater grasp of the geo-political situation.
First, in her own words, her foreign-policy credentials:

I have a sister who lives overseas and she’s been in England and now lives in the Middle East.  I’ve spent a lot of time on my own traveling, ‘cause I’m interested in it.  Less so as attorney general, and my responsibilities don’t take me overseas.

Unbelievable?  See for yourself:

Remember when the media had a great collective chortle over Sarah Palin’s alleged remark that she “could see Russia from my house,” even though those words belonged to Palin avatar Tina Fey?  The press had a field day distorting Palin’s quote, as if she bumptiously blurted out the first thing that came into her silly head.  In fact, Palin’s remark came in reply to a question from a snooty, supercilious Charles Gibson:

Q: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks does the proximity of the state give you?

A: They’re our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

Unfamiliar with the First Rule of Hostile Journalism  — that every question is a potential “gotcha” – Palin fell into the rookie trap of trying to be conversational with a snake and wound up halfway into the boa constrictor before she knew what hit her.
So, on the theory that turnabout is fair play (to the Democrats, it never is, but so what?) let’s take a look at Ms. Coakley’s baffling answer to a perfectly reasonable question from David “Conventional Wisdom” Gergen during the debate.  Asked about her views on Afghanistan, she said this:

I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan.  I think we should plan an exit strategy, yes.  I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They’re gone, they’re not there anymore, they are in apparently Yemen and Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is.

Unfortunately for Martha’s learning curve, the Taliban had earlier provided a response, had she bothered to notice it:

Almost needless to say, the U.S. is actively fighting the Taliban and that “terrorists” have been killing U.S. Troops, CIA, members, and NATO troops on a daily basis in Afghanistan for the last several years.  That’s why it’s called a “theater of war.”
Ironically, on the same day she said this, she could have read this AP story:

Six NATO service members, including three Americans, were killed Monday in Afghanistan, making it the deadliest day for the international force in more than two months.

The violence underscored warnings that casualties will increase as more foreign troops stream into the country and step up the fighting against the Taliban.

Not to worry, though: given her defeatist foreign-policy ideas, if Coakley is elected, she may soon be able to see terrorists at Logan Airport.  Just ask the people of Detroit how that almost worked out.


Big Journalism