Showing posts with label Coakley as Collateral Damage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coakley as Collateral Damage. Show all posts

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Globe: Coakley, Greatest Loser

Globe columnist Adrian Walker:

"Six months ago Martha Coakley was one of the most famous politicians in America for a few agonizing and awkward weeks. Her loss to Scott Brown catapulted him to cover boy status, while people wondered what on earth could be next for the suddenly toxic attorney general.

This week furnished some answers. First, Coakley’s office reached a $102 million settlement with Morgan Stanley, after accusing the Wall Street giant of unscrupulous mortgage lending. On Thursday, US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, partly as a result of a suit filed by Coakley’s office.

She also went public with some tough questions about Cape Wind and has the final call on whether a New York investment firm can scarf up the Caritas Christi hospital chain. . .

Yesterday, Coakley, with her usual calm, noted that the failures of her Senate campaign had nothing to do with her service as attorney general.

. . .

While Brown became a national celebrity, Coakley simply went back to work. “It’s great to be back working,’’ she said, “especially when we get these kinds of results.’’

The settlement with Morgan Stanley was the latest — and by far the most successful — of several suits against companies that contributed to the subprime mortgage mess. Morgan backed bad loans by a company called New Century, on which many homeowners defaulted. Coakley successfully argued that the loans violated basic guidelines and that the homeowners had been sold loans they clearly could not pay back. About $58 million will go to beleaguered subprime borrowers.

“I think we were able to shed a little bit of light on the way they operated,’’ Coakley said.

Of course, the fight against the Defense of Marriage Act strikes close to home to many in Massachusetts. In essence, the battle is over whether married gay couples are entitled to the same federal benefits as other married couples.

Coakley’s challenge followed one by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. She was approached by GLAD after it filed suit and invited to play a role, which grew into filing a separate lawsuit.

“We thought it was an uphill battle, but we made a strong argument that the burden in terms of Massachusetts was unconstitutional,’’ Coakley said.

Many observers believe that Tauro’s ruling, which is certain to be appealed, will have little immediate impact. Coakley, however, chooses to take a longer view.

“If you’re a student of constitutional history, you see that changes that are dramatic rarely happen overnight,’’ she said. “There are steps forward and some steps backward. But this is a big step forward for all Massachusetts married couples.’’

For all the scorn heaped on Coakley after the Senate campaign, she is unopposed in her bid for reelection, as the predicted crowd of opponents never materialized.

If she has hit a political glass ceiling, it is in a job she clearly loves.

“We were able to make a little bit of progress in the area of civil rights and able to make life a little better for the people of Massachusetts,’’ Coakley said.
"







Full story here.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Department of Coakley As Collateral Damage (Not to Mention Menino Throwing Coakley to the Wolves, Which I Won't Mention, As I've Mentioned It Before)


Just found this diary by peterboy.

"Scott Brown got the same vote total as McCain, but Coakley got 900k
fewer votes.

Dem turnout and independent turnout just disappeared.

MA Election results
2010 election

1,168,000 brown
1,059,000 coakley
20,000 others
2,247,000 total

2008 election

1,109,000 mccain
1,904,000 obama
100,000 others
3,113,000 total


Brown wins with about the same vote as McCain got.

Where were the 900k or so voters that didnt show up at all and who just a year ago gave Obama the win?

Brown ran identical numbers to McCain, but Coakley drew 900k fewer.

Dems and independents just didn't turn out. It is as Howard Dean tried to say but then didnt have the data to support it--Progressives are mad at Obama for talking tough on Corporations, HMOs, Big Rx, and Wall Street. But then playing kissy face with them.


Too bad progressives failed to notice that actual progressive Martha Coakley don't play that kinda kissy face. But they did not. Scott Brown attracted lots of late money from Wall Streeters wanting Brown to kissyface them.

In her bid to become the first woman elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts, Ms. Coakley has thrown her support behind the proposed health care overhaul, the issue that has given this special election a national focus. She has said, though, that she supports a public option to encourage competition and reduce costs.

As attorney general, Ms. Coakley investigated subprime lending practices and helped provide relief for Massachusetts homeowners beset by foreclosures. In 2009, Goldman Sachs agreed to pay up to $60 million to end an inquiry by her office into whether the firm helped promote unfair home loans in the state.

Ms. Coakley supports President Obama’s proposal to tax financial institutions to recoup taxpayers’ investments and would vote to end tax cuts that favor wealthy Americans.

However, Ms. Coakley has said she does not support Mr. Obama’s decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, saying instead that Afghan leadership must be strengthened.

On civil liberties issues, Ms. Coakley was the first state attorney general to sue the federal government to overturn a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and woman. She also opposes the death penalty and advocates civilian trials for terrorism suspects.


Elections have consequences.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

MASen: First Battle In the 2L4O Rebellion

Five thirty eight has the stats, but they think their eyes deceive them!

Which is really rather amusing.

By a 68-27 margin, voters in last Tuesday's election supported the universal health care law in Massachusetts; this included a majority of Scott Brown voters! But these same voters opposed the Democratic health care plan, which is quite similar to the Massacuhsetts law, by a 43-48 margin.

What accounts for the discrepancy?


I know. But they don't.

Here are stats for "Brown" voters:

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
ALL 86% 7% 7%
MEN 84% 8% 8%
WOMEN 88% 6% 6%
DEMOCRATS 88% 6% 6%
REPUBLICANS 63% 22% 15%
INDEPENDENTS 78% 14% 8%


"Brown" was "elected" by Medicare for All/Public Option/single payer people.

And that, boys and girls, its what is now known as the first battle in The 2L4O Rebellion.