Joho the Blog
|
|||
|
October 05, 2006
Deval Patrick, the Democratic candidate for governor of Massachusetts, is being attacked by his Republican rival for writing letters in support of paroling a convicted rapist, Benjamin LaGuer, who has been in jail since 1983. When a DNA test showed that LaGuer was guilty (a finding LaGuer and a bunch of DNA experts dispute), Patrick dropped his support. So, Patrick is soft on crime because he believes justice sometimes miscarries and/or because he believes in the possibility of redemption. Outrageous! Then I saw photos of the prisoner and his erstwhile supporter.
There's something they have in common that I can't put my finger on. Both in suits? Nah, that's not it. The way they're holding their hands? Nah. Similar haircuts? Nope. Wait, no, it couldn't be—dare I utter the unutterable word in this contest—race? Surely the Republican campaign wouldn't have chosen this issue because—although I doubt they ever put it to themselves like this—it associates an African-American candidate with an African-American rapist. Why, the Republicans would never ever Willy Horton stoop so low as to imply that a Democratic candidate would fail to defend our women from those predatory, over-sexed Black men. What I truly don't understand is why the Boston Globe has been giving this charge the front page treatment. Why this one among all the other charges coming out of the desperate Republican campaign, some of which are on actual matters of substance? The Globe ought to be ashamed that it's fallen for the Republicans' plausibly-deniable racist appeal. [Tags: politics deval_patrick racism media journalism] Posted
by D. Weinberger at October 5, 2006 02:35 PM
|
Comments
The latest Healey ad (currently on their front page) is either poorly or brilliantly written, depending on your level of cynicism. At the end the voiceover says, "While lawyers have a right to defend admitted cop killers, do we really want one as our governor?"
I doubt they're asking if we want a lawyer as our governor.
Posted by: steve | October 5, 2006 05:26 PM
The two angles that eminate from the Globe's reporting today are the questioning of Patrick's judgement in so eagerly supporting LaGuer, and the subsequent less-than-candid response of Patrick when asked about it, for which he has apologized.
One hard-nosed political question Patrick should be asking himself today is how many votes (especially women's) he might lose due to his perceived fawning over a brutal rapist.
Posted by: Jon Cahill | October 6, 2006 09:16 AM
The Globe was front-paging this before they caught Patrick in what looks like a downplaying of his involvement. I thought the Globe's editorial today actually did a good job explaining the context.
Posted by: David Weinberger | October 6, 2006 10:54 AM
Mr. Patrick is in trouble because of his lack of clarity when asked about LaGuer. He stated that he wrote him 15 years ago and only once. That wasn't true. The Healy ads don't even mention LaGuer. The guy they talk about is white and a cop-killer. Its his truthfulness that is in question. He set himself up for this because he portrayed himself as different from the others yet he is the same. I wonder if Reilly knows how Patrick feels since the phone calls to squash the investigations for those two young ladies who were killed in central MA.
Posted by: Michael Baugh | October 6, 2006 03:58 PM