Boston Globe's Endorsement of Coakley

I don't read the Boston Globe much. Not because of their political slant, but because I don't live any where near Boston. I used to think that the Globe inherited the rich tradition of the Boston Gazette, but after reading their endorsement of Coakley, I reconsidered. The Globe is certainly not the fiery publication the Gazette was, but actually appears to be more like the Boston News-Letter. The News-Letter was the mouth piece of the British government in the Colonies and enjoyed the Crown's financial backing. Much like the News-Letter, the Globe seems to be the newspaper of the Democratic establishment in Massachusetts and the mouth piece for the party. The Editorial Board's endorsement of Coakley is so one-sided and ridiculous you have to remind yourself that you're not reading The Onion.

 

To start with, the Globe begins by lamenting that the health care debate is too long and showcases what is "offensive about the rules of the Senate." Or in other words, what is so offensive about the democratic process in Congress. The Globe has little room to speak about offensive legislative practices as it tacitly endorsed the State Capital in Boston politically engineering the rules concerning Senate vacancies to favor Democrats for a second time since 2004. 

 

The Globe goes on to mention that Ms. Coakley has dedicated two decades to law enforcement, but chose ignore why the State's Attorney-General chose to do nothing as she witnessed one of her campaign staff members commit at least a misdemeanor criminal assault on a Weekly Standard reporter. As far as I know, that staffer is still on her campaign and she has done nothing to assist law enforcement in DC with possible charges. Of course, she was out of her jurisdiction and could not legally do anything in the pursuit of justice. What's the lesson here: legal and procedural technicalities are ok for Coakley, but not for the US Senate.

 

Another reason that the Globe endorses Coakley is because she is not ignoring "signs of improvement in the economy." It is here that I had to pinch myself. This statement goes beyond bold and enters into the realm of fiction at worst or naive wish-thinking at best. The economy has not shown signs of improvement. The number of job holders fell by almost 600,000 in December and while "official" engineered unemployment rates are listed at 10%, the real number is hovering around 17% (Telegraph UK Article on real unemployment).

 

Obama has now been President for over a year, despite what Democrats want, he is responsible for the additional 3.2 million people who are not working since he took office. Additionally, many economists looking at improvements are stating that this is the result of shifting around billions of borrowed dollars in a political shell game. It does not represent real growth. At some point, the Democrats, who play the victim so well, will have to take responsibility for failing to do anything with the White House and super majorities in the House and Senate. On second thought, no they won't because press outlets like the Globe will not hold them accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

 

Then the Globe attacks Scott Brown for being an obstructionist who should not get in the way of the ever decaying health reform debacle. Laughingly the editorial board tries to pass off the following platitude as journalistic wisdom, "Blocking bill is easy; finding a politically acceptable response to complicated problems is hard." What hackneyed tripe. The Globe completely ignores the fact that Democrats, not Republicans, have held up the health care bill and it was Democrats who would not vote yes until they were paid off. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska all secured provisions their bill that will funnel billions of tax payer dollars into the system ensuring the people in those states receive better benefits than people in 47 other states. Is this the type of acceptable response the Globe endorses?

 

The Globe also accuses Brown of his typical approach to discrediting Democratic initiatives. I found this charge assuming as it is itself surrounded by nothing less than a discrediting attack. The Globe even trysto link Brown to Republicans who expose that all these "free" programs will paid for by tax. Oddly enough, this morning Obama announced a new tax on banks to pay for his bailout follies. No free lunches folks, not even in Massachusetts.