‘CIVILITY” WAS a popular buzzword last year when then-Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren signed a much-hyped “People’s Pledge” to keep third-party advertising out of their rapidly escalating US Senate contest.
“The Senate race in Massachusetts,” Fox News cheered, “is going for the civility vote.” Springfield’s daily paper hailed the candidates’ “push for campaign civility,” applauding “their efforts to reject the nasty rhetoric spewed by third party groups.” A few weeks later, New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal lauded Brown and Warren’s “mutual disarmament” pact as heartening evidence that some candidates, at least, would hold themselves to a higher standard of “respect for civility, fairness, and the truth.”
Comments
I'm not convinced that having interested parties buy votes on behalf of corporations by way of negative attack adds is good on any level.
The issue has never been "civility". The issue has always been "corruption" in govt. "Corruption" as in insuring that my elected official when deciding whether to vote on a particular issue decides based upon what is best for the state and for the nation, not based upon whether I donated 250.00 dollars or whether some PAC for banks donated 10 million. Let us not be so naive as to believe 10 mil can't buy you love.
This comment has been removed.
Jeff already has amnesia how the senatorial campaign unfolded. Elizabeth Warren rolled up her sleeves and built a solid grass roots organization and traveled back and forth across this state to win the election. Her focus was always on Brown's voting record and his attachment to Republican ideology both in governing and his domestic political acts. He kept on claiming his record was being distorted and continued to use smear tactics to gain votes. In the end the voters decided they wanted progress not the status quo or worse. This piece by Mr. Jacoby today is just another attempt to equate the quality of these two candidates. It doesn't wash. Former Senator Brown definitely via Eric "etch a sketch" Fernstrom decided on the low road.
It is always interesting to try to figure out where JJ is coming from. The goal of the Pledge was not civility, it was responsibility. And in that regard it worked. Scott Brown had to take responsibility for the nastiness of his campaign because, at least on the airwaves, he couldn't let the NRA or Big Oil do his dirty work for him. I liked that. It shred to bits the "nice guy" image he had tried to create. So where is JJ coming from? He wants to make sure that the Big Money will come sweeping into the state for the special election and that Brown, like Pilate, can just wash his hands of all the nastiness and distortions spread on his behalf.
Trying to silence citizens. Right, Like Exxon and Goldman sachs et. al.
Elimination of out of state broadcast media attack ads didn't stifle anything. The candidates' messages got out. But the mailings were over the top. The US Chamber of Commerce had a flyer sent twice to me calling Elizabeth Warren a "threat to free enterprise." Please explain to me how outside attack ads shed additional light onto the candidates. Jeff: is it that the Republican money was greater than the Democrat money and Scott Brown put himself at a competitive disadvantage by signing the pledge? If so, that implies that you approve of unaccountable money trying to buy an election.
I disagree, and think the agreement was actually a good start on a model that other campaigns should use.
We weren't subjected to the nasty radio and TV ads that were so prevalent in other races - you know, the ones with the parsed video and highly edited 'quotes," although we did receive lots of nasty mailings and robocalls. The mailings went right into the recycle bin, and the phone calls - irritating though they were - were easy to hang up on. And their deal didn't stop Brown from running an ad falsely claiming to have authored the STOCK Act, but it DID stop others from making false radio and TV claims on his and Warren's behalfs.
And the agreement forced Brown to say things himself that he otherwise would have had others say for him, showing the voters that he really didn't have a whole lot to say.
I'd like to see that agreement expanded upon to include robocalls and print ads - and I'd like to see it emulated by other candidates. We're all campaign-weary here and are looking at another Senate campaign, a potention House campaign, and then the beginnings of a Governor's campaign. We should all demand truth and civility in those.
She is SO PROUD of her Native American ancestry ... since a little girl, it's part of who she is! But ... not proud enough to have a staffer call the Senate Historical Office and be listed as a Native American Senator ...
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/01/liz_warren_won%E2%80%99t_beat_drum
The affirmative action scammer will get another pass on this, Harvard too for filing false diversity reports.
It's her Chappaquidick, never going away.
The concept of the Etch-a-Sketch is that you come up with new topics, chief. The election was Brown's to lose and he lost on issues. In six years the election will be Warren's to lose, so I suggest you look for some real issues during that time.
At least we don't have to worry that Jacoby will ever engage in civility.
This comment has been removed.
Religious ideologues are only civil after they've burned you at the stake.
Warren won with $40+million war chest, old women, refusals to be interviewed by local media, while making herself accessable to CNN and NEVER, NEVER saying anything else but vowing to "fight for the middle class."
However, Prof. Warren refused to make any effort on behalf of the underpaid Harvard workers while she & her husband worked at Harvard.
This comment has been removed.
There's nothing to respond to here. Where is it proved or even suggested that she "refused to make any effort to..." etc? Has anyone but Canta gone on about this?
As others have said, civility was not the primary purpose for keeping third party political ads off of the airways for this campaign. Sorry Jeff that that clearly comes off as a straw man issue you set up to give yourself something to rant about. The pledge was useful because it made clear who was responsible for the ads that did air, and it rejected the legitimacy of Supreme Court rulings that money = speach, and Corporations = people. The mail flyers and robocalls were a useless waste of money; just two more straw men for your article.
This comment has been removed.
Foreign campaign contributions are restricted in national elections. It's probably not possible, but I believe out-of-state funds should be prohibited in state and local elections.
They are, after all, running to represent the people of this state, and I don't think Massachusetts voters should be hoodwinked by slick con men from New York, California, or Texas. Montana has been fighting this issue and maybe we should too.
In NH an ad funded by a non-candidate's money ( specified ) that the opponent did not pay taxes on her $500,000 home. It played repeatedly on MA TV. I checked it out. The candidate's husband was Principal at a private school and received housing, a standard allowance in that situation. It's this type of misleading information that outside funding might avoid. Not the "civility" issue. Oh, the lady won in NH. Again, Jeff, it's the issues not the side shows that determined this past election, both state and national. Senator Brown's problem was that he wasn't definitive on the issues as he was about 1) the Indian heritage, 2) the overused and condecending "Professor" title approbation, ( this in a state whose strongest marketable asset is Education and 4) the overuse of the family man ads. About 70 to 80 % on those and 20 to 30 % on what he did.
"Trying to silence citizens with strong views about politics should have no place in American life, above all during an election cycle. " Perhaps the signature quote of your lamentable "career". BTW, this particular contest was decided 2 months ago.
On a slightly different note, your two favorite (only?) Sycophants are missing again. R12's "lodge"is probably having another "cookout". The guy with the BHO obsession may be nursing a sick cat. Don't worry. they still love you.
It's always this false equivalency thing with Republicans. If the Republican is doing something questionable or wrong, the other side must be either doing it too or doing something else that's worse.
I agree. It's a common non-defense or often a deflection. Without discussing the issue at hand, they try to divert attention to a different matter more to their liking.