THE NEW MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Something quite remarkable is happening in Massachusetts.  A Democratic candidate is getting criticized by the liberal press.

There'll be a special election in Massachusetts on January 19th, less than two weeks away, to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Edward M. Kennedy.  The Dem candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has a history of imperious behavior, apparently believes the seat is properly hers, and that no effort should be required of her.  Her unknown GOP challenger, Scott Brown, was within nine points of her in a recent poll, but that hasn't gotten her off the throne.

Even writers at the veddy veddy liberal and proper Boston Globe have become disgusted.  Brian McGrory, a Globe columnist, put it bluntly: 

If you're a registered voter in Massachusetts, your friendly Democratic Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, is sticking her thumb in your eye.

Coakley, in exquisitely diva-like form, is refusing all invitations to debate her Republican opponent in the race, Scott Brown, unless a third-party candidate with no apparent credentials is included on the stage. She may also require a crystal bowl of orange-only M&Ms in her dressing room, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Her demands have led to an astonishing result: there will be just one -- that's one -- live televised debate in the Boston media market this general election season.

The sad fact is that it may not matter.  The election will probably be closer than most in Massachusetts, but the place is filled with people who pull the Dem lever automatically.  And the many college towns will be out in force for Martha.  Odds are that she'll win. 

This is all part of a Coakley pattern. When she ran for attorney general, she didn't allow even the Republican candidate on a debate stage. In fact, she refused to debate at all.

And yet they keep electing her.  Liberal.  Female.  Feminist.  Who could ask for anything more? 

In fact, Coakley has a dark side.  She was involved in one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in recent memory, the despicable Amirault case, in which clearly innocent members of a family were falsely imprisoned on trumped-up child-abuse charges during the child-abuse madness of the 1980s.  Coakley has consistently refused to help right the wrongs, which were exposed by the great Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal.  A great lawyer Coakley is not.

For that matter, let's take a look at Coakley's campaign schedule for today. Well, actually, we can't. There isn't one. She isn't doing anything in public -- no meetings with voters, no debates, no public appearances. For all we know, she's spending much of her time at home with the shades drawn waiting for Jan. 19, Election Day, to come and go.

Which is the real problem with all this. Voters want their political candidates to earn the position -- with hard work, innovative ideas, and a hearty nod to the process. The funny part about a good campaign is that voters not only get to meet the candidate, but the candidate gets to meet the voters and learn what's on their minds.

In Washington, senators don't get to dodge their opponents. Right now, dodging looks like the Coakley way.

So the question must be asked:  In the light of Coakley's queenly behavior, does Scott Brown have a shot?  As we said above, Coakley will probably win.  And the Republican National Committee, reflecting its usual lack of imagination, isn't giving Brown much help.  But there could be a miracle in the offing if enough members of the public get good and angry at being taken for granted.  And even a close call in Massachusetts would be some kind of statement.

If I were the Republican leaders in Washington, I'd go all out for Scott Brown.  Hey, you never know.  With liberals criticizing Coakley, the GOP could benefit from stay-at-homes who don't have the enthusiasm to come out and vote for her.

But, alas, the remnants of the Kennedy family will do their duty today and endorse Coakley, which will give her a boost in some circles.  What a sad end to the legacy – to see the family endorsing a candidate who won't even fight for the job.

January 7, 2009