[Note: Friends of Justice is a personal blog. I speak only for myself.]
Dear Friend of Justice,
Many old and dear friends have been very sad and angry these past few days. And many are angry with me for my refusal to vote for Martha Coakley. I have of course been defriended on Facebook and I have lost subscribers to this blog. Others I have directly encountered have just been uncomfortable in my presence. We have usually avoided discussing the election.
I think I can honestly say that I know how these good friends feel. All I have to do is remember how I felt last December 8th, when Coakley won the Democratic primary. She won with less than half of the votes cast. She received only the votes of seven and a half percent of registered Massachusetts voters. But I, like many others, assumed that the final election would be no more than a formality. I thought that Coakley would continue to be a major influence on political thinking, not only in Massachusetts but nationally.
I have been especially pained by the accusation that I don’t care about health care. I believe some who make this accusation have never had to do without health insurance because they couldn’t afford it. Jim D’Entremont and I have. We could not have done the work we have done these past dozen years — for Bernard Baran and others — had we held down full-time jobs. There were times when we tried to insure ourselves. But eventually, we realized that one of us had to drop out. A month or two later, the other would follow. There were times when we needed medical attention and just didn’t get it.
A few years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan of increasing coverage by fining those who did not buy health insurance. Those who couldn’t afford the premiums supposedly would receive subsidies from the state. An inefficient (and often rude) bureaucracy was created to determine who got the subsidies and the amount. The forms one had to fill out were horrendous. And somehow, they never seemed to be correct. After weeks of dealing with nasty people on the phone, we finally thought we’d filled Jim’s form out correctly. Unfortunately, they lost that form and we had to start over. I finally gave up on the plan and waited for Medicare. Jim was granted a tiny subsidy. When Jim eventually told his doctor that he couldn’t see him any more because he had to drop his insurance, the doctor referred him to someone who knew how to get around the bureaucracy and get him the coverage he needed at a price he could afford.
Bernard Baran and his partner are battling the bureaucracy right now. Neither of them are working. Bee can’t work and David is a seasonal employee. But the bureaucracy doesn’t want to listen to them.
When Obama was elected, my fear was that he was going to model a national plan on Massachusetts. I am not sorry that he has been forced back to the drawing board. Of course, the problem may not be soluble because there are so many powerful interests who benefit from the system as it exists. Not all problems can be solved. Not all disasters can be avoided. But we can at least hope that politicians can put aside partisan differences and try to find a solution.
Obama is not doomed to failure because of the loss of a Senate seat. Previous presidents of both parties have governed effectively without a majority in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate. I for one am relieved that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have been stripped of their veto power — a power they both relished using. If I had wanted Joe Lieberman as my president I would have voted for him.
I hope that the defeat of Martha Coakley will at least diminish the influence of the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office on Massachusetts politics.
Scott Harshbarger was elected District Attorney of Middlesex County in 1982. He was succeeded by Thomas Reilly, his first assistant. And Reilly was succeeded by their protege, Martha Coakley. All three made a big name for themselves by winning convictions of people who are almost certainly innocent: Violet, Cheryl and Gerald Amitault; Ray and Shirley Souza; Louise Woodward; Paul Shanley; and others. All three have consistently and stubbornly refused to admit that they might have made any mistakes. All three have been backed to the hilt by New England’s paper of record, the Boston Globe. In other states, politicians and judges have realized that the coercive questioning of small children creates unreliable evidence. In other states, politicians and judges have realized that there is no scientific basis for the theory of repressed memory of traumatic events. In other states, measures have been taken to exclude junk science from the courtroom. But not in Massachusetts because of the poisonous influence of the Middlesex County DA’s office and its powerful cheering section.
Harshbarger, Reilly, and Coakley all moved up (with no serious opposition) to the office of Attorney General, where they continued to fight to preserve the power of prosecutors. For all three, the Attorney General’s office was supposed to be but a stepping stone to greater power. But the strategy didn’t work. Harshbarger and Reilly ran for governor — and lost. And now Coakley has lost — in a spectacular and humiliating fashion — her bid to become a U.S. Senator.
I think the Massachusetts Democratic party will be better off with the diminished influence of these three ruthless and ambitious politicians.
I also hope that one result of this election might be the diminished impact of identity politics, both here in Massachusetts and nationally. I have voted for many women and expect to do so in the future. But a candidate’s gender has never determined my vote. Neither has their race or their sexual orientation. If you vote for someone because of their gender or race you are also voting against someone for the same reason. Yes, we should have more women in public office. But to achieve that we need to run first-rate candidates.
Again, I take no pleasure in seeing good friends in pain, especially in a pain that I understand because I have so often felt it. But I also know from experience that this kind of pain eventually diminishes and, when it does, one can more rationally assess what went wrong and how we can work to make things go right in the future.
I know this election was especially difficult for those who follow this blog because you know much more about Coakley’s history than did the average voter. While I posted much about Coakley I could not bring myself to support Scott Brown or urge you to vote for him. But now that he represents Massachusetts, let us hope that he will in fact represent Massachusetts. For all of my complaints about the state (or at least its politicians) a great many good, decent, and thoughtful people live here. Some of them voted for Martha Coakley. That doesn’t lessen my affection and respect for them. I hope we can continue to work together for justice.
-Bob
As a feminist and a progressive and a big supporter of universal health care, I was very torn about Martha Coakley. I have never voted for a Republican. I don’t know what I would have done, but I support your principled choice.
I still love you.
She didn’t want to let me out of prison even though i had DNA exonorating me.
Dennis,
Thank you for your comment! I knew about what Coakley tried to do to you, because Bee Baran told me. i was appalled at the time and I remain appalled. I have posted about this, but only in general terms and always leaving your name out of it. I didn’t want to drag you into a public controversy and I wasn’t sure whether or not you and your lawyers had agreed to a gag order.
Being a Friend of Justice, to me, means standing up for innocent people who have been unjustly accused and wrongfully convicted. Martha Coakley, on her own, and in following up on the actions of her predecessors, Harshbarger and Reilly, has caused immeasurable harm to many people. I know the lasting effects on these people, to this day, because I consider myself their friend and talk to them all the time. Their families were destroyed, their lives turned upside down, their good names and reputations irreparably sullied.
Coakley and the other two of the Middlesex D.A. triumvirate have ascended the political ladder of ambition, the rungs of which have been innocent folks, including the alleged child toddler-victims, who, after the interrogations for trial and the subsequent years of “therapy,” still believe they were abused. These officers of the court, defenders of the law, seekers of truth and justice, all, have utilized political expedience to further their ends.
Wouldn’t our electing them to be Governor of the Commonwealth, or United States Senator, be more acts of political expedience, but not their acts any more? Ours.
I’ve been told to “eat crow” for the greater good of the country, and vote for Coakley. But, as far as I am concerned, I, we, have been “eating crow” for the last 25 years, by our not yelling from the rooftops that injustice and corruption have been alive and well in the Middlesex D.A.’s Office.
Beyond that, what assurances are there that a Coakley in the U.S. Senate would ensure an acceptable and adequate universal health care bill? Even were there an iron-clad assurance, even though I was born and brought up a “Boston Irish Catholic Democrat Son-of a -Bitch,” I could no more vote for her than deny whatever integrity I have discovered in my being who I am, and have become, a friend of justice.
For thoughtful people, elections are not easy matters and I understand and appreciate the feelings you express so clearly.
I thought it was telling, though, that MC was both hated FOR and hated AGAINST in her professional work with regard to “sex offenders.” For us on the Defense – the work she had been a part of was inexcusable. For some, on the other side the work she had done was “not sufficiently” prosecutorial and thus -inexcusable. I was/am still shocked by the entirely circumstantial case of “the cop and the curling iron” & I appreciate why her office extended some bail flexibility, etc. which created such horror in the tea-bag universe.
For me this election had to be about “now” and the coming year – not some “pay back” for wounds genuinely protested. MC would help universal health insurance – even imperfect as it is – become law. Scott Brown vowed to stop it. STOP END OF LINE. Yes I care about the 30 MILLION Americans without health ins. (and Bob – I spent decades in that group of uninsured myself and racked up back-breaking debt myself) but I actually worry more about what it has done and will continue to do to our standard of living. You know heath care cost have been eating away at the average worker salaries at a rate which is simply unsustainable. Working people make “less’ today in relative dollars than 20 or 30 years ago almost entirely due to the cost of medical insurance and it is not stopping. Health Care Reform is not just a “nice” idea but one essential to our ability to maintain our standard of living relative to the 90% of the developed world that does have medical costs under better control.
Is the Bill perfect? Is anything?
With not just 30 million uninsured on my mind but with all of US on my mind, focusing on what one little lawyer did in a JOB that effected – as you counted – 3 people in a HORRIBLE way, just was not a good enough reason for me to toss our generation’s one shot at national health reform.
Call me short cited but please understand I have defended sex offenders for more than 10 years and hope to do so for the rest of my life as nothing gives me more satisfaction than defending these “witches” in our new “Salem.”
Even so – without reference to an actual faith I am continually moved and supported by Mathew: “As you do on to the least of these, so you do unto me.” In these few words, Bob, I suggest – may I presume, despite our differences – we are family?
Debra
After Scott Brown’s horrible remark about what he would like to do to Coakley with a curling iron, I never could have voted for him; but there’s no way I could have voted for Coakley either. Luckily, I vote in Virginia (and live in Singapore – knowing the way these things work, my absentee ballot probably would have been “lost” anyway). I did encourage all my MA friends to support the Amiraults et al and not vote for Coakley, and I’ve taken a bit of heat for it from my friends who know me as a very loyal Dem, which I am. My response: if Coakley had won, the Dems still wouldn’t have really had a working supermajority anyhow thanks to Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln; and without her, they still have a solid majority. If Harry Reid couldn’t get the health care bill through last week, having Martha Coakley on his side of the aisle wouldn’t have helped.
Some friends agree, some don’t; but at least I got some of them to recognize that Gerald Amirault is not a statistic.
Debra,
I know the wonderful work you have done and are doing for justice. You are a true friend and a true friend of justice!
-Bob
Response to Dave:
I thought the “curling iron” remark was reported as coming from an unknown person in one of Brown’s audiences during the closing days of the campaign. Where did it get attributed to Brown, himself? I’m curious because, as far as I know, Brown did not bring up that case in his campaign. I did hear a lot about it on various talk-radio shows, however, especially following the Boston Globe article criticizing M.C.’s handling of the case.
Dear Bob,
I very much appreciate how you feel and how difficult this must be for you. I had an unhappiness as you know, when I resigned from the board of advisors for the National Center For Reason and Justice, when I believed that it supported a case it had at first correctly, in my opinion, rejected, and then, depressingly to me, reversed itself. So reasonable people do disagree, and my experience in what I then considered, and still do, a serious failure on the part of NCRJ did not diminish my admiration for you or for the good causes you have supported. Similarly, I fully understand your refusal to vote for Ms Coakley. I am not a Mass. resident and cannot know what I would have done in the voting both. I know nothing about Mr. Brown. What I do know is that it would have been very difficult for me to cast a vote for Ms Coakley, and I can only respect you for putting your principles above the enormous pressure you must have received from people of good faith who felt the need for a 60th vote was more important than saying no to someone who has behaved as she has. You will lose something in the short term by what has happened, but I hope that the elusive search for a just society has been strengthened by the position you took. And ditto on Lieberman and Nelson. Best wishes, Bernie Rosenthal
Certainly you know my feelings about Coakley.
I will second John’s comment and tell you that I still love you!