Today voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls to elect a Senator to fill the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. But in the final days, a couple of volatile issues have come to the forefront because of an ugly remark made at a campaign rally.
Photo of Martha Coakley © Darren McCollester/Getty Images
Democratic candidate Martha Coakley was once a district attorney overseeing a horrific 2005 toddler rape case involving a curling iron that many felt wasn't appropriately handled. So when her opponent for the Senate seat, Republican Scott Brown, held a rally in which a supporter shouted out a vicious remark about Coakley, many in the crowd understood the reference.
A YouTube video has surfaced which covers the rally and Brown's response/non-response -- a moment which the NY Daily News speculates will turn the tide against Brown:
A video is circulating in which Republican Scott Brown seemingly smiles at a violent, sexist taunt directed at his Democratic challenger Martha Coakley at a rally.
"Shove a curling iron up HER butt," shouted one attendee off-camera. Brown, holding a bullhorn, seemed to smile and nod in acknowledgement....
With Republican Brown doing so well in the polls, it's possible that his reaction to the Coakley "curling iron" remark may end up being his Lazio moment.
New Yorkers and Hillary Clinton fans will remember then-Rep. Rick Lazio stalking across a debate stage in 2000 and demanding that Clinton sign some pledge he waved in her personal space. He came across like a bully, and went down.
Violence against women. Baby rape. Not exactly heartwarming topics to reflect on in the days preceding an election. But the remark begs the question -- what is/is not acceptable in terms of free expression? If a speaker crosses the line in his/her comments, what is our responsibility as listeners to push back?
Advocating violence against women is never acceptable. But would the YouTube video be making the rounds if the remark was made against Brown? Probably not. Yet it's doubtful that a female supporter of Coakley would ever say that about Brown if the tables were turned.
So what we have is a heinous act -- perpetrated against a toddler with a curling iron -- that, in turn, is used to mock and taunt a candidate, turning a family's nightmare into political fodder.
The Daily News wants to blame a candidate who may or may not have heard the comment made by a supporter.
Shouldn't we cast a wider net? Why didn't we hear any boos in the crowd after the remark was uttered?
If Brown loses the race because of this incident, there's a larger message for the rest of us. Using rape as a punch line in a joke, a taunt, a game, or a threat -- should not be tolerated. The more we keep our mouths shut, the longer this behavior will go on.
Comments
In today’s article “Coakley ‘Curling Iron’ Rape Remark Reveals Ugliness on Many Levels” there are no less than six ads and one sponsored link about curling irons (plus one about “hair care”). I would remind the publishers of about.com of the Times’ ethics policy: “We do not accept illegal advertisements OR ANY ADVERTISEMENT THAT ABOUT.COM FEELS IS OBJECTIONABLE OR IN BAD TASTE.” (EMPHASIS MINE) It should hardly be necessary to point out that in the context, these ads are worse than being simply in “poor taste” but stand as obscenity.
The curling iron joke is a reference to the brutal rape of a toddler with a curling iron that Martha Coakley tried to cover up because the rapist was politically connected to her and the unions.
Who are you going to trust? The woman who tried to cover up the brutal rape of a child for political convenience?
Nice stretch on this one. Brown was not smiling about the horrific rape of a child. If he was smilling or nodding it was because of how laughable (i.e. disgusting) Coakley’s handling of the case was. She is the one who had no regard for the child involved, not Brown.
It’s not natural to smile at a ‘disgusting’ comment. That is an inappropriate reaction to something that is vile. Nice stretch on that one. Conservatives in general display nonchalance about violence toward women. I hope this costs Brown the race.
I am so grateful to the Dems for selecting Coakley — an obtuse, insensitive, cloddish party-wonk who has a deaf ear for issues that matter, even to the liberals in MA. The tea party once again begins in Boston and we will throw the rascals out of office!
Threats of violence against citizens participating in the democratic process should never be acceptable, and we should all be horrified at rape threats against women running for office, whether or not we support the candidate.
Cathy, you’re not paying attention! Brown was using the remark as fodder against Coakley’s poor handling of a rape case because the perpetrator was a campaign contributor. If anything, letting a woman get away with poor handling of a rape case is far worse than Brown bringing it up years later for political gain, though it’s still awful.
Though I believe Coakley would be better for women overall over Brown, she really screwed up when she didn’t do her job, and it’s simply unacceptible.
I agree w/ comment 6 above: violence against citizens participating in the democratic process should never be acceptable. I also believe that the threat of violence should not be tolerated. So why isn’t anyone up in arms over the Black Panther threat to voters in 2008? Also, Brown exhibited poor taste in smiling at the remark but Coakley exhibited poor judgment in her handling of the case given her conflict of interest. As of last night, the people of MA have spoken.
The off-camera comment was from a Brown supporter, so Brown had an obligation to maintain dignity and decorum at the proceedings, even if he privately wanted to laugh.
In the county courtroom where a low-life prosecutor wants to score points with a Neaderthal jury, he allows inflammatory, off-limits testimony that surely will bring objection from defense counsel– but not before to rehearsed comments have been heard by the entire court. (”Strike the comments from the record… You may proceed, counsel,” says the judge, afterward, with a knowing wink.)
Even more to the point about Brown’s GOP hypocrisy, what would Brown have had to say about somebody shouting at a Coakley rally, “At least you are not trying to auction your daughter off on eBay! I withdraw my $5.00 bid!”
Instead, Brown stole the base, and smiled and laughed at the comment with seeming endorsement. It is always easier to apologize, GOP bozos are told, than to ask for permission to break the rules.
The whole election was stolen in a Karl Rove-style setup against Coakley, whose hand-counted ballots gave HER the election, not Brown.
But due to the late arrival of all ballots– and because the official tally was done before all of the votes arrived– Scott was said to have edged out Coakley. Again, ballot for ballot, Coakley won the election.
As most voters will conclude, the people of Kennedy’s district had their election stolen, because not all votes were counted. This same uncounted votes probably altered the course of Florida and the nation, back in 2000.
Interestingly enough, after the GOP lost in 2004 to WA state governor Christine Gregoire, it filed multiple challenges, each after it lost the previous challenge.
Likewise, after the GOP took up most of 2009 challenging Al Franken before he was finally seated in the Senate, that party immediately bristled “And it is our right to challenge any election”.
Where is the DNC in all this? Asleep?