******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Trolls for Coakley

The HillBuzz guys warned that the trolls would come out in full force if it looked like Scott Brown was getting close in the polls:

We are writing to you as moderate Democrats who fought for Hillary Clinton all through 2007-2008, then became Democrats for McCain/Palin and remain supporters of former Governor Palin now. This means that for almost three years now, we have been on the receiving end of everything the Left has dreamed up to throw at us.

Dr. Utopia, our current president, and his supporters are truly the most vile and malicious people we’ve ever been up against. In the primaries, in particular, their viciousness, hatred, and stop-at-nothing/ends-justify-means attitude was sobering. We learned many lessons in the trenches we won’t soon forget — and need to pass on to you now.

For the next ten days, the most effective thing the Left will do is to demoralize Scott Brown’s supporters to convince them to sit their butts home on election day. It is a time-proven and successful tactic of the Left. Frankly, it’s the best tool
in their arsenal. We call this Eeyore-breeding and concern-trolling.
The HillBuzz guys were right. This is what a concern troll looks like, from someone tried to post this comment yesterday at my post Coakley Admits She Is In Deep Trouble:

I went to Scott Brown's web site wishing to donate merely because Kennedy had been so bad for the country. Unfortunately, I need more reason than that because republicans have been bad for the country too. Most republicans are very wishy washy about supporting economically conservative positions, and some are downright Marxists (like Nixon with his wage and price controls).

It makes no sense to support this guy if he is just another Bush I or II, or McCain. So I looked on his web site for his position on this mess. I found nothing but the typical claim to be for free markets, and he seemed to be very much on the fence over non-market "solutions" to medical care.

What I wanted to see was a clear condemnation of the bailouts, the Fed, Fannie and Freddy, the purchase of GM, Greenspan, Geithner, Paulson, etc.

That would have enabled me to justify turning over some cash.

Anyone have information on his positions on these things. I'll throw him $100 if someone can point to some ballsy opposition to the economic insanity of Clinton/Bush/Obama.
How do I know that this is trolling? Well first the format of "I really wanted to support Brown, but...." Second, this same person posted a comment critical of Republicans in response to a different post.

I let the critical comment through, but not the concern troll comment. I don't mind opposition and criticism, but I do mind trolls.

The Democrats are throwing millions of dollars at this race in the final days for negative TV ads:

"It’s a goal-line stand for the Democrats,’’ said Ray La Raja, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “The stakes are so high now, with this being the 60th seat the Democrats need. . . . They’re scared out of their minds."
The trolls will be out in full force in the blogosphere. Do not let it slow you down.

Update: Speaking of trolls, Blue Mass Group has released a Research 2000 poll showing Coakley up ty 8% among likely voters. The details, however, reveal that they polled roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Independents, even though Independents far outnumber Democrats. Since Brown wins among Independents in the poll (and by even larger margins in the Rasmussen and PPP polls), the results are much closer. Added: An Coakley campaign internal poll has her up only by two points.

Related Posts:
"What's Martha Afraid Of?"
Coakley Takes Slap Shot At Fenway Fans
This Photo May Change The Election

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share


  1. Using the link at the top of your page I have volunteered to make calls from home for Scott Brown and I am encouraging others to do the same at my site.

    Up until about two years ago I thought I was a model citizen because I never missed a vote. Now I see the direction that the country is going in and when I look at my grandchildren I am ashamed that I hadn't done more. I muddling through this "activist" thing one day at a time and I know I will never be complacent again.

  2. The DNC actually sent me a request for funds to help Dem candidates *now* and throughout 2010.

    Uh.... they shoulda thought about that before they dismissed the Clinton wing of the party back in 2008. And before Obama sent his paid Trolls out to harass the PUMA bloggers.

    The DNC can kiss my a**. If Scott Brown wins it will serve them right.

  3. Wonder if concern trolls are getting $50.00 to go around pasting messages like that into blogs?

    And frankly, I hope that the left keeps up with the Bush baiting . . . I miss the hell out of President Bush and would FAR prefer him in the WH than its current resident. They're just reminding me of how nice it was to feel secure and safe in my own country. And I doubt that I'm alone in that.

  4. As a Tea Party conservative, I too understand that Scott Brown is suspect as a conservative Republican. But that is NOT the point in this race. It is not about Brown but about exploiting an unexpected gift opportunity to kick both parties in the groin.

    Even if Brown turns out to be another Collins, Snowe, McCain or name your own detestable RINO, the immediate and lasting benefit of having a Republican emerge out of Ted Kennedy's old seat (the very guy who spawned this abomination and fought for it for over 40 years) to cast the vote that kills this bill is too delicious to ignore. The very possibility that this has a very good chance of happening might be enough to kill the bill before Brown's vote would even count as the sorry state of incumbency weighs on the minds of our entrenched criminal class of elected weasels.

    Look at it this way. How often can we conservatives kick BOTH parties in the groin? Scott got no help from the RNC and is in this race only because people like me understand what his victory would signify about the vulnerability of ALL elected supporters of one-world government and American Marxism. How dumb would Brown have to be to realize that WE are who got him elected? As a conservative, I see no down side to electing Brown.

  5. Just noticed an error in my prior comment. A sentence in the final paragraph should have read:

    "How dumb would Brown have to be to fail to realize that WE are the ones who got him elected?" (D'oh!)

  6. At least one commenter accused me of being a "concern troll" yesterday because I cautioned against overplaying the "violent crime" aspect of the episode outside the Coakley DC fundraiser.

    Today, Michael Graham balances perfectly the appropriate themes of the episode in "Hush comes to Shove," his Boston Herald commentary.

    Notice, the take away isn't an outraged demand for a criminal investigation into violence, merely a metaphor pursuasive to undecided voters about Coakley's governing style. Extremely well done.


  7. I despise the Democrat left-wing agenda, seeing in it the same future as Pyongyang and Zimbabwe. I am _not_ amused by the fact that some of these traitors have not been given the prosecution and incarceration they deserved for their chronic, blatant, and public violations of 18 USC Chapter 115...

    I drip contempt on the "Beltway GOP" who think that "Democrat-lite" is acceptable. These are the people who facilitated (one could actually argue for "engineered") the accession of Democrat control of Congress and the White House. Government should never replace personal responsibility for charity and so forth.

    I listen to the Teaparty crowd with suspicion, knowing that many populist movements have been hijacked by charlatans and opponents of freedom. We need this group; but the members must make certain that neither snake oil sellers nor "brownshirts" change the focus off of re-legitimizing our government.

    But Scott Brown is fresh--and in Massachusetts, that is a big deal! I recommend supporting him as much as one can--and not the least because of the assault and battery of the Press by Coakley Campaign employees...

  8. These Obama trolls have been coming out of the wood works this week trying to get into my blog comments.

    Whining to get in, in some cases, when they see they are not passing the moderation filter. It is with amusement I delete their comments from the held for moderation folders.

    With a single stroke of the delete all spam button it is woosh! Away they go! ...tossed into the bit bucket of life.

  9. I would include third-party advocates among the trolls. Where I am, the local Libertarians are run by the local Democrats. They'd just love to pull a Ross Perot at the first opportunity, poised to do so in 2012.

    But it looks like in this case Martha Coakley's doing that all by herself, since she claims she's being stalked and apparently has a morbid fear of anything with blinking lights, like the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" stunt. Maybe they'll ruin her daughter's wedding next?

  10. Let's see . . . a slight correction may be needed:

    Per EDH above:

    "At least [one] two commenters accused me of being a 'concern troll' yesterday ..."

    There. That's better.

    Technically, of course, "at least one" is accurate, but only in the very limited sense that the statement:

    "At least 25% of the voters currently support Scott Brown"

    is technically accurate. Whereas, given his astonishing momentum:

    "At least 50% of the voters currently support Scott Brown"

    would be a far more accurate statement, though it may still be shy of the mark.

    Chiding people for attempting to walk and chew gum at the same time might be very good advice for the Democrat candidate, Martha Coakley, who seems almost comically incapable of performing even the simplest of tasks without having to take a "Mulligan" -– such as, simply answering a reporter's questions without sending in a goon squad member to knock him down! And, she still hasn’t answered John McCormack’s question!

    But, as for the rest of us, we are fully capable of noticing, putting into perspective, and having a little fun with more than one flaw in the Coakley repertoire at a time. And, we will continue to do so, notwithstanding your repeated remonstrance on that point .

    We really have to be –- there is just so much material she has given us!

  11. The thing is, that I did not agree that EDH sounded like a real concern troll. We get them in Australia... the type that say... I voted for John Howard etc. etc. but those Liberals (not the same as your liberals) and not any more blah blah.... and one knows quite well that people who post like that have never voted for the Liberal Party in their lifetime.

    Well the same goes for your trolls, but in this case you could have a troll who is either being paid by the DNC or Moveon.org, or someone who is a Ron Paul Libertarian.

    I have noticed that those who push Ron Paul all the time are in the anti-George Bush camp, and that they are also anti-Afghanistan and anti-Iraq etc, and that they do not understand that we do have a real war going on - even if it is one sided at times - and that constant vigilance is required.

    So your troll could be a Coakley supporter or could be one of those purist Libertarians just like Hillbuzz warned us....

  12. Maggie, I understand your point about the type of trolls who out-and-out lie, claiming that they voted for so-and-so, but would never do so again because now that he or she has been proven to be nuttin' but a low-down, no good, feral creep!

    The point made here was that the "lecture line" of EDH yesterday came off as a more subtle form -- one intended to try to control or tamp down the conversation, or at least to try to steer it away from a discussion of the possible offenses attributable to Mr. Meehan.

    With all their missteps over the past few weeks, the last thing the Coakley campaign wanted or needed was the possibility that Meehan would be charged with an offense, disorderly or otherwise, for shoving John McCormack to the ground while he was merely trying to ask the candidate a legitimate question.

    They also knew they did not want this issue extending into the weekend. But they did NOT want to surrender. That spelled defeat.

    Nor did they want any ongoing discussion of Coakley's failure to act in an appropriate manner, given that she witnessed the incident.

    So, in somewhat rapid fire, they tried three lines of defense that I could detect.

    The candidate herself stated that the Republicans had somehow been "stalking" her.

    And Meehan trotted out his "confusion" explanation.

    Now, his "defense" sounded a bit like the prelude to a peace offering, somewhat contrite, and perhaps given in response to McCormack's acknowledgements that Meehan had helped him up, and that he was not hurt.

    But don't forget -- the Coakley campaign still did not know what McCormack was going to do.

    Coakley's stalking claim, however, was risible on it's face. That's because the video, the photo, and the written accounts clearly showed otherwise.

    At the time of the incident, she had stopped to take a few questions, but rudely refused to address John's question (one for which she STILL no good answer) and she glanced around, asking if anyone ELSE had a question.

    When that nonsense defense of hers fell flat, the second line of defense came via Eric Schultz of the DSCC, who trotted out the even more ridiculous claim that the video somehow constituted a Republican "dirty trick."

    That one engendered gales of laughter from all assembled!

    Rest assured that it was only in the face of humiliating further exposure, or the possibility that Meehan -- by that time also identified as the culprit, and also as an Obama operative -- that the Coakley campaign had the towel thrown in.

    Meehan called McCormack and personally apologized. Maybe he simply decided to do it on his own. Or, maybe he was asked to by a campaign guru. I'd give Meehan the benefit of the doubt, because there does not appear to be anyone in that campaign with a lick of sense.

    But without the entire incident having been rapidly played out here and on many other sites, by commenters watching the video, and fleshing out all the possible consequences, I'd bet Coakley would still be standing by her stupid claim that:

    "I wuz stalked!"

    As it is, she ends up the big loser, both personally and politically. And the beauty is that she defeated herself, with an assist from those around her.

  13. @Trochilus, this is an excellent, and I mean that, response. It addresses the concerns raised by EDH which were indeed very subtle, and could be seen as the writing of a concern troll, whilst at the same time putting focus back on what Coakley and her blatant disregard over what was a definite assault. I watched the video of the incident at least twice. What I observed was the roughing up after the first push.

    I agree that Coakley lied about the stalking. The lady does not know what it is like to be stalked (and yes I do, it has happened to me in my lifetime at least twice - and the last time though not serious really had me feeling spooked).

    Unless the reporter has Republican written all over his hat :) I cannot see how it was a Republican dirty trick since it was Meehan who did the pushing and it was Meehan who did the later shoving.

    Since Coakley is one of the extreme feminist types I have no doubt that she would have continued with her nonsense "I was stalked". Since when is asking a question stalking? She was not stalked. McCormack asked a legitimate question and she felt embarrassed enough over her response the previous night that she did not want to answer. So he tried to ask about the fact that she was taking campaign donations from big Pharma. I guess she does not want the people of Mass to know about that..... :)

    As I said, you have given a great and very detailed response :)