| Today's headlines probably aren't quite what Team Healey was hoping for.
The latest vicious LaGuer attack ad is being trashed by groups that represent survivors of sexual assault. "Victims’ advocates rip Healey for TV ad with rape theme," says the Herald. And in the Globe (in a page B1 article by Andrea Estes and Frank Phillips that for some reason is not online), the executive director of the Jane Doe fund, "the state's leading advocacy [group] on sexual and domestic violence," says:
I heard the voice over and thought this commercial reflects a woman who does not understand victim issues. It does more harm to our effort to have a real dialogue about what the real problems underlying sexual and domestic violence.
Similarly, the AP story on boston.com reports:
The ad is drawing fire from women who support Patrick and victim advocates who said the Republican candidate for governor is pandering to women's fears in an attempt to draw votes and is ignoring the fact that the vast number of sexual assaults are committed by relatives or acquaintances, not strangers....
Georgianna Melendez, who described herself as a sexual assault survivor, also spoke at the rally. "This ad perpetuates the myth that women are in danger walking alone at night when in reality they are most at danger in their own home, on a date, or with someone who professes to love them," she said. "It also perpetuates that we should fear black men."
So pretty much every victim's group in Massachusetts is trashing this ad that is supposed to play to women's fears of becoming a victim. (The exception, of course, being the increasingly bizarre Wendy Murphy, who in her not-online pro-Healey comments to the Globe pretty much gave away the game: "Violence against women is a huge political issue." Oops.) Margery Eagan piles on: "'Deval Patrick, he should be ashamed,' says the voice-over. Oh Kerry, Kerry. So should you." And in related news, the Globe reports that even her fellow criminologists don't think Healey's much of a criminologist.
The news is only slightly better for yesterday's "October surprise": the Turnpike Authority's preliminary vote to get rid of the tolls west of Rt. 128. The Herald's editorial board loves it, of course. But the Herald's reporters seem to have a different view: "Healey foes rip toll fix as 'political stunt,'" writes Casey Ross. And the Globe's editorial page notes the curious fact that the "final vote" on the toll rollback will not take place until 8 days after the general election (look for a possible "November surprise" when the board decides, whoops, maybe we can't do it after all). And no one has yet explained how, even assuming that by eliminating 200 toll-taker jobs you can save $40 million (does it really cost the state $200,000 apiece for these guys? I don't believe it), that still leaves 70% of the toll revenues to be accounted for -- revenues that MassHighway will have to make up when it takes over responsibility for the road. Where's that going to come from, if we don't want the road to fall apart? Even Eric Kriss, the Romneyite who masterminded this thing, acknowledges that "Capital investment of $80-$100 million annually is needed to maintain the existing MTA [turnpike] infrastructures." You know, $80 million here, $100 million there, pretty soon you're talking real money.
Eagan's column is actually more about the tolls than about the LaGuer ad. She noted that the toll announcement was made "before a room of reporters suspicious of the timing." And she notes that Christy Mihos, the original "take down the tollbooths" guy, is skeptical:
“Mitt’s helping himself,” said Christy Mihos, who proposed taking down the tolls years ago. “That’s what (Romney) asks himself every day. What’s best for Mitt?”
Mihos also charged that Romney hopes “to take the focus away” from the Securities and Exchange Commission allegation that his people falsely claimed adequate Big Dig safety inspections. “It’s a serious charge,” says Christy, one that John McCain surely will be thrilled to shove in Romney’s would-be presidential face.
Question: Can you run for president from The Big House?
She concludes that this whole thing is an election-year stunt that has no chance of actually happening:
And I’ve smartened up. The notion they’ll actually take down these tolls? Total baloney. Here’s when they’ll really come down - when hell freezes over, Part II.
In other words, pretty much everyone thinks that this toll stunt is exactly what it looks like: an "October surprise" designed to win a few votes. Is it actually a bad idea? Not necessarily, though its proponents have a lot of work to do to explain how the numbers make sense (not that that's ever stopped Healey before). But no one in their right mind wouldn't be suspicious of the timing. |
