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.

Kill Bill: "Bankster" Brown Throws Weight Around

No one could have predicted that Wall Street darling Scott "Bankster" Brown would singlehandedly kill a $19 billion bank tax. Except maybe Goldman-Sachs-slayer Martha Coakley, who, incidentally, is not in the Senate representing the people of Massachusetts.

Brown’s threat gets bank tax removed
Finance bill’s funding reworked

WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown yesterday forced Democrats to remove a $19 billion tax on big banks and hedge funds from the proposed Wall Street regulatory overhaul, the second time the Massachusetts Republican has used his pivotal role in the Senate to influence the legislation in favor of major financial institutions.

After Brown threatened in writing yesterday to oppose the package unless the $19 billion tax was eliminated, House and Senate lawmakers reconvened late yesterday and agreed on a new way to pay for the additional regulatory oversight in the sweeping legislation, which is intended to help prevent another economic crisis like the 2008 market meltdown.

Scott Brown, Wall Street Darling

Special interests?

You betcha!

Why would Wall Street throw money at Goldman-Sachs-slayer Martha Coakley, when they could throw their ill-gotten gains at Scotty Brown?

From Media Matters on Scott "Heckuva Job, Brownie!" Brown.

In the final days of Scott Brown's tough campaign against Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, every cent counted. With polls so close, it was clear that the election would likely come down to which campaign was able to spend the most money and run the most ads during the last stretch.

Thanks to Wall Street, Scott Brown won.

As the Boston Globe reported: "In a six-day span just before the US Senate election, Republican Scott Brown collected nearly $450,000 from donors who work at financial companies, a sign the industry is prepared to spend heavily in the upcoming midterm elections to beat back new controls and taxes President Obama wants to impose."

The Globe interviewed Richard Hillman, an analyst for First Wilshire Securities, who decided to give $2,400 to Brown at the last minute because, "I thought making him the 41st Republican vote in the Senate would prevent some really terrible legislation from getting through."

Hillman (along with hundreds of other Wall Street donors) seems to be getting his money's worth. After receiving more than $390,000 from Wall Street, Brown is now doing the industry's bidding in the Senate by threatening to kill Wall Street Reform.

Smearing Elena Kagan: Grey Lady Smear-Sandwich Edition

I read the NYT this AM and realized that I was actually reading the National Enquirer.

No, really.

On the front page, to which I shall not link, is a charming piece smearing Kagan with the "A" word -- gentle readers, you must know what that one is, the thing that uppity women must not be -- (whispers) ambitiouss -- ooooooooooooo so scarey --- and on the inside back page, NYT features comments on Kagan's views of executive powers as parsed by --- insert drum roll here --- pro-torturer-in-chief John Yoo.

Oh, my. Who thought that one up? The Heathers? ("Hey, whatcha say we ask John Yoo what he thinks about Kagan's views on executive power?" [Crowd chortles, all dig elbows into one another's ribs.] "Hyuk, hyuk!" "Do it! Do it!")

Really I do get sick of this sh*t.

But -- why am I so alone?

So lucky that early adopter Goldman-Sachs-slayer Obama Afghanistan-surge non-supporter public optionist Martha Coakley didn't win over uber-charmer Scott Brown, isn't it?

Brown? Coakley? [Insert The Big Shrug.]

It really doesn't make any difference, does it? It's all hopeless, so who cares?

And then we have a wonderful blogger to whom I shall not link who's very generally wonderful save for relatively rare spasms of bad madness who's spending his precious time on earth helpfully calling Hillary Clinton a war criminal.


Jeez, people.

Wake the f*ck up.

AG Martha Coakley Expands Jobs Programs for Youth

Thinking outside the box, AG Coakley expands jobs for youth program with monies from her successful suits against Big Pharma and Big "Health."

Shame on us for failing to elect her to the US Senate.

-----
From the Boston Globe:

"With the economic crunch squeezing the number of jobs available for young people, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced yesterday that her office would devote another $100,000 to employment programs, creating 64 more positions for at-risk youths in programs across Massachusetts.

The funding — which came from settlements of cases against health care and pharmaceutical companies — will boost the $1.5 million the attorney general’s office already committed to 16 programs through Project YES, or Youth Employment Solutions. The grants were open to municipalities, public school districts, and nonprofit groups that serve low-income or at-risk youth and include physical fitness in their programs.

With yesterday’s announcement, the program is now expected to create a total of 225 jobs.

“It’s not enough. But it’s a good start,’’ Coakley told about 100 teenagers assembled in the gym at the Catholic Charities Teen Center at St. Peter in Dorchester, where she was joined by Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley and Mayor Thomas M. Menino. . . "

Considering how he backstabbed her in the election by failing to turn out his machine on her behalf, it must be challenging to share a stage with Menino.

Swiftingboating Martha Coakley

Using Twitter.

And let's keep in mind that Attorney General Coakley's going after Goldman Sachs pretty much right after her 2007 election as AG had absolutely nothing to do with [insert special interest here] needing her to be smeared into defeat in 2010. That was just because she spent too much time with her family and didn't know the name of a conservative Republican baseball player and was both too feeble and too ambitious. Ok?

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.

Progressive Martha Coakley: Collateral Damage in the Public-Option Rebellion

The numbers are in; the truth comes out.

This turns the MA election upside down: MA was not a victory for GOP, not at all. In fact, it was the exact opposite.

It was a defeat for conservatives, and a triumph for liberals: the Public-Option Rebellion.

From RJ Eskow:

Here are the first results from after-vote polling in Massachusetts: By a 3 to 2 margin, Obama voters who voted for Brown thought that Obama's reform bill "doesn't go far enough." And those Obama voters who didn't bother voting felt that way by a 6 to 1 margin. 82% of Obama voters who went for Brown (and 86% of those who stayed home) support a public option. And 57% of Brown voters said that Obama is "not delivering enough" on change.

In this stunning victory for progressives that sent a sudden shocking a wake-up call to timid Dems in Washington, it's ironic that talented, passionate progressive Dem Martha Coakley wound up being sacrificed as collateral damage.