Scott Brown
Good Morning Conflucians!!!! Well it looks like Barack Obama may actually have achieved the impossible dream–turning Massachusetts purple. The latest Suffolk University poll shows Republican candidate Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley by four points in the race to fill the vacant Massachusetts Senate seat. From the Washingtonn Post:
BOSTON — A new poll in the Massachusetts Senate race shows a shift in favor of the Republican Party and a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda in Tuesday’s special election.
The Suffolk University survey released late Thursday showed Scott Brown, a Republican state senator, with 50 percent of the vote in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.
Democrat Martha Coakley had 46 percent. That was a statistical tie since it was within the poll’s 4.4 percentage point margin of error, but far different from a 15-point lead the Massachusetts attorney general enjoyed in a Boston Globe survey released over the weekend.
The right wing Boston Herald is gloating:
Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
Martha Coakley
It’s a sad day for my state and it will be even sadder if Brown wins. If only Coakley had stuck to her guns and told the DNC to go f&ck themselves, this might not have happened. This morning I heard Coakley on NPR saying that she would vote for the Senate version of the health care bill despite the anti-abortion language, but she claims to oppose the House version with the Stupak language. But as I see it, there’s not a lot of difference between the two versions–they will both essentially eliminate coverage for abortion. Martha, why didn’t you listen to the people instead of the corrupt, out-of-touch DC Dems. Now we’re all going to pay the price.
Only one thing can save Coakley now. Yes, you guessed it, they are bringing in the big guns.
With a crucial 60th vote in the Senate at stake, the perceived tightening has sent Democratic operatives scrambling to Massachusetts to help the Coakley campaign and has prompted groups on both sides of the aisle to bombard the state with advertising. Ms. Coakley forcefully attacked Mr. Brown this week, an unusual step for a front-runner, painting him as an acolyte of former President George W. Bush who is out of touch with the state’s values.
Can the Big Dawg save Martha?
Former President Bill Clinton will bring his campaigning power to her aid on Friday, and in the meantime, Ms. Coakley is adding to her schedule the kind of meet-and-greet stump events that she largely ducked for weeks.
What will happen?
Predicting the outcome of the vote on Tuesday grows more difficult each day. Many Democrats still insist that a Republican win is impossible, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one in the state and that Ms. Coakley, who was elected attorney general in 2006, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support. A poll published Sunday by The Boston Globe gave Ms. Coakley a 15-point lead.
But the poll of 554 likely voters, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found those who were “extremely interested” in the race virtually split between Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown. And Democrats are clearly unnerved by other recent polls that found the two neck and neck.
I’m still struggling with what to do myself. I’m repulsed by the idea of voting for Coakley after she stabbed women in the back, but at the same time I don’t want to have to deal with a neanderthal like Scott representing my state in Washington. What to do, what to do?
This is an open thread. Feel free to post other news links in the comments. I’m too worried to focus on anything except the ruination of Massachusetts by the Obama Dems.
Filed under: abortion, Barack Obama, broken promises, Democratic Party, DNC, Politics Tagged: | Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Health Care Reform, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate race, Scott Brown
Good morning bb,
Here are a few things I’ve seen this morning:
Martha Coakley’s Convictions
The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html
Terrible Realities: Why Both the Left and Right Oppose Coakley
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/01/15/terrible-realities-why-both-the-left-and-right-oppose-coakley/
Question of the Day: Why are you so angry at Martha Coakley?
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/15/question-of-the-day-why-are-you-so-angry-at-martha-coakley/#comments
Those are right wing skewed points though. I disagree with them. But nothing can justify electing a neanderthal like Scott Brown. Nothing!
What’s right-wing about them?
She kept an innocent man in prison. She appears to be running a tone-deaf campaign, and just yesterday said she didn’t see the reporter get knocked over, when there’s video and AP photos of her loking right at it. We have a terrible health bill going through the Senate, and instead of meeting constituents she has dinner with the same companies that have been running health care for years, supposedly part of the problem. This isn’t right or left politics, this is about right or wrong.
I don’t agree that man was innocent. All the sourced you posted are right wing. WSJ, No Quarter and Hillbuzz? All Republican. I disagree on those issues.
The websites I linked didn’t say the man was innocent, the judges and parole boards did.
I disagree with them.
just out of curiosity, what is your political affiliation?
She saw the man on the ground, she may very well not seen what put him there.
American.
gutless American.
Watch… “I am a democrat”. It’s easy, what is your political party? It will tell us where you are coming from. I am guessing the Brown campaign.
TeresaINPa, you can find my posts here at the Confluence from 2008 and 2009 on this subject. I’ll be happy to discuss the race with you but until you stop calling me names I cannot take you seriously nor will I respond again. No I am not affiliated with any campaign, nor am I a Massachusetts voter, as I said downthread.
poplicola does come here regularly Teresa. The Confluence never shuns a respectful debate
I suspect, Teresa, that poplicola is an ex-Democrat, now Independent, who sees facts as they are. Many of the posters here have been in that political position since the primaries.
Yes, I read that article. The judges and the parole boards said he was innocent, and you guys know how much it pains me to sound like airhead Jeralynn.
He’s a self-professed bigot!! How can you justify voting for some one who has gone on record claiming every GLBT is ‘abnormal’?
Maybe she’s not going to vote for either one of them, Dak.
I suspect a whole lotta Dems feel the same way.
Obama is a self-proclaimed bigot. Ask any of the close to 700 gay and lesbian service members kicked out of the military since he took office. And he has he done jack-squat to end DOMA? no – have ANY of the DEMS with their super majority lifted a finger to help the GLBT community in the past year other than bread crumbs? No. So there’s no difference in either party – you’re judged by your actions – not your promises. The difference is the dems lied to my peeps to get donations.
No, the sex-abuse case is trotted out by Coakley-haters every chance they get. The main defendant had multiple appeals and his conviction was confirmed at mutliple levels. The original case has been so obscured by lurid media attention and right-wing axe-grinders that it is impossible to know what happened without actually reviewing the entire original case documents.
I may stay home, or I may vote ‘None of the Above’ or write in someone else (eg FDR), but the reasons to not vote for Coakley can’t be based on sensationalistic cr*p like this.
The health care industry supporters were there for Coakley for a long time before now. There aren’t really any national level politicians who aren’t beholden to big money (with a few exceptions like Sanders, but he’s not a choice on the menu). It’s perfectly legit, I think, to not vote for ANY politicans because they are corporatist lickspittles, but that’s not really a reason to not vote for Coakley in particular.
I’m like bboomer, I can’t stand the thought of Brown in office — he’s horrible on every point — but I can’t get over Coakley throwing reproductive rights under the bus faster than lightning. Pro-choice women are her base for jeebussake. That she didn’t even wait until she was elected to sell us out shows considerable contempt for her supporters (ie, voters).
Thanks for defending my POV on the Amerault case. I don’t buy that there was nothing there. But then I always tend to be on the side of children who were sexually abused as opposed to pedophile perpetrators.
Thanks for stating that Valhalla – I’m willing to keep an open mind, since I read that I haven’t come across anything to contradict it.
bboomer and pop — I spent a lot of time before the primaries trying to track down what went on with the Amirealt case and finally threw my hands up in disgust because it seemed like both sides had axes to grind and were making iffy claims. Media reports were useless because they always go for the most lurid possibilities. If I had the time I would go through the actual case docs myself.
In any case, I did find a few sources a while ago, they’re in my comments on this thread, if anyone’s interested.
Brown’s supporters also often try to obscure the difference between the original trial and the subsequent actions on the case many years later, implying, falsely, that she was somehow involved in the original case.
If she didn’t defend a judgment of guilt obtained by her predecessor they would be bashing her as “soft on crime.”
The seat will be up again in 2012. And voting Brown in means that fauxbama will have to be a real president and actually WORK to get a republican vote. Bill Clinton worked with republicans ALL THE TIME because he was an adult and knew how to do his job. If brown goes in, Obama fails. Meaning 1. He’s finished. or 2. He has to become a real president and find a way to pass legislation without a democratic supermajority. then in 2012, Mass puts a dem back in congress.
So it’s easy, for those who want obama out of the WH, vote Brown, are okay if he stays, vote Coakley.
Yeah, the seat will be up in time for the ’12 election. Which means, unless Obama is on track for reelection, Brown will be in for at least 8 years. It’ll be wipeout for the Dems, most likely. It’s foolish to vote someone in on the premise we might be able to get him out in 2 years as we don’t know what will be in play in 4 years, but that really makes no sense.
Also, you don’t live here, but what Dem are you thinking about? Coakley’s career will be over. We have very few Dems who don’t suck completely who are at all viable. So in the unlikely event “some Dem” can win, chances are it’ll be someone pretty bad.
spammy ate my post!
I’m so ashamed! I never thought Massachusetts could turn purple! The world is turning upside down.
lol — wonder if that’s the hidden message from President Obama (he wore a purple suit in the video he made yesterday):
Actually, I think that represents O’s political party … neither R nor D, it’s O all the way.
Thank goodness Big Dawg is there to do so much of the work for this lazy, disloyal administration.
Hillary tried to warn them, when she made the point of reaching out to heartlanders in the primaries.
Massachusetts has a lot of “Heartland” outside of Boston. Just as NY has a lot of Heartland upstate. And if I am not mistaken, both states went for a Heartlander during the 2008 primaries??
The Dem party is so screwed. By it’s own ignorance.
Yes it is, BB! Where do we go now, the mountains? This is no one factor. I think it is a combination of a different demographic in MA and the sad truth that everyone in high national office is beholden to the party and corporate interests no matter what they personally believe. And the health care disaster is the final nail in the coffin. There is a substantial purple base in MA, but they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for McCain/Palin. They may not stay home this time considering Obama’s health care debacle and everything else he’s done that will push them over the edge on Tuesday.
BB, I’m ticked off at Martha, too, but this is one time when we have to leave our anger at the door and do what’s best for us overall. If Brown wins, Reid will force the senate vote before he seats him. Brown will not be able to vote against this bill. Martha needed the DNC’s support to get elected. Capuano was their man, not her. We know she has it in her to stand up for us, but she has to get there first.
As a junior senator I don’t think she will stand up. That’s the politics of the situation.
Do you live in MA? Would you rather have Brown there sticking up for the religious right?
Well, she went against the powers that be to stand up for Hillary all the way to the convention.
sorry, posted my above response before I read BB’s below.
I’m going to have to bite the bullet and vote for her. I do think she has it in her. After all, she stuck with Hillary all the way to the convention–and that wasn’t easy. Not at all.
And I do NOT want to be told what to do by people who do not live in Massachusetts!!!!!!!
I don’t live in Mass, so I’m neither voting in this election nor telling anyone there how to vote. I do however have my own Senators and (lack of) representation and watching your race helps me figure out what they’re up to.
What specifically do you think she’ll do to ” stand up for us?” I’m watching my local candidates closely and so far none of them seem at all responsive.
I don’t know that she’ll do anything to stand up for you if you don’t live in MA. I know she will do better for Massachusetts than a George W. Bush clone like Scott Brown.
I’m with you on that, BB!
I support you in this BB. These are not absolutist decisions. The values that Brown will bring to the Senate are abhorrent. It’s a big picture thing IMHO.
After lots and lots of thinking, I have to say I think I would hold my nose and vote for her too. I like her other than the tossing out her soul and abandoning women’s rights for Obama. Maybe that previous version of her would return. But I sure would send lots of messages about the issue.
Unfortunately we’re blackmailed over women’s rights that keep getting taken away no matter what. And I guess it works. So I don’t expect any changes from the DNC. Sigh.
Where else are you going to go?
Push meet shove. It appears Obama and the DNC were right, they have nothing to fear from us and that’s a damned shame.
agree.
but I’m voting Brown.
rewarding bad behavior never works out well..
So you’re going to reward Brown for his bad behavior, catarina? Since when is calling LGBT’s “abnormal” not bad behavior?
Dandy–As someone who’s also not from Mass. and can’t vote in this election, I think I’d do the same. It seems to me that sticking by Hillary to the end says more about Coakley’s character than does the two-step on the HCRA. And Brown is simply, absolutely, abhorrent on all counts.
Then why do you care about Gillibrand, Ralph? She votes yes on health care, cast her off into the outer darkness. Every single Democrat votes yes, Bernie votes yes, they must all be removed and replaced with horrible Republicans. Ford isn’t worse than Brown, that’s for sure. In fact, he’s against HCR. By your logic, he’s our guy! They can fear us, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to embrace idiot Bush clones and vote against absolutely everybody regardless of the circumstances when it’s not going to make a bit of difference to the bill. By that logic, we should have voted for Obama based on his purity and the fact that he wasn’t there to vote for AUMF. Lead by example, replace every halfway decent Dem in your state with the vilest Republicans you can find, then come back and report what a great leap forward it was for progressivism. Then maybe we’ll get why everyone who doesn’t live here is so enthused by all the magic glory that will devolve from siccing him on us.
You could tell her you plan to vote for her this time — but if she had stood up for women (and others), you would also be sending her money. And if she does not start standing up for women, you won’t be voting for her next time and might send money to her opponents.
It’s an idea. (I am not in MA.)
djmm
If Reid does that, and the bill is unacceptable for the majority of the people, he and many other D’s will lose their seats next year.
Manipulating and misusing his power just to get bad legislation passed because O thinks it will make him look good while it is horrible for the people doesn’t sound like a really smart thing for any D in DC to do right now.
The D’s are going to lose anyway. Obama and his crew have destroyed the Democratic brand for a generation at least.
Take heart: everyone said that about the Republicans last year. We can all rest assured that this garbage will continue and both parties will carry on just fine. Individual citizens are the ones in trouble.
I still think the Republican brand is destroyed. People are just afraid of this health care bill. In MA we already know it will just lead to higher rates.
Yes, except that when the GOP brand fails, the conservatives just say “oh well see the GOP didn’t listen to us, they went all big government on us, proving our point that government is the problem, not the solution.” When Democrats pass bad policy, they are not proving the liberal point of view, they are detracting from it. The nuance there gets lost for most Americans who just see government creating more problems than it solves. Good policy is what proves our point. Passing bad policy helps the GOP in the long run. It gives them a leg to stand on that they shouldn’t be able to after the Bush-Cheney years.
boomer, that’s an interesting about MA voters already having more
knowledge about the effects of the health care bill because of the
system you have there being so similar. I wonder if that experience is part of what’s fueling the push back on Coakley. I mean, she was riding high, backtracked on the bill, and now is paying a price. If this had happened in another state, maybe the response would have been more bland.
So sad, but so true. And I’ll always believe that’s what the Big Zero was put in place to do.
Unfortunately, they seem to be completely tone deaf to anything connected to reality at this point. They’ve been manipulating and misusing power from the start–that’s why there is such a hostile reaction. What’s their response? They are already preparing the statements that claim “this has nothing to do with Obama and his agenda…it’s all Martha’s fault because she sucks.” (And you can bet they were leaning on her HARD to change her position on HC.)
The Massachusetts race will not be decided by the diehard liberals who always vote for the D.
This time, the race will be decided by the Independents (many of them ex-D’s) who are staunchly opposed to Obamacare and all the special interest deals done behind closed doors.
These Independents know Coakley will be the 60th vote for Obama’s policies, especially Obamacare.
You might not like that, but that’s the game, this time.
But it’s also due to the fact that Dems are unenthusiastic and/or angry and going to stay home.
Yes, fif. Obama and his Chicago mob threw too many of them under the bus, on the way to where we are now.
And that has nothing to do with wingnuts or freepers or “teabaggers.”
The polls now show that if the election were held today, Obama would not be re-elected.
Reid will get his needed votes one way or another. We can have Coakley in there or a GOP anti-choicer.
They are going to get this bill passed with or without Brown, IMO, probably keying in on one of the Maine senators. They have invested too much to give up now, no matter what nasty deals they have to make to get the votes. So, in effect, a vote for Brown will still get us the HCR, but we’ll also be stuck with Brown. I disagree with this guy on EVERY issue, with the possible exception of HCR (which he actually supported in MA, although now he’s trying to get them to drop certain mandates for coverage – gee, shockingly, mammograms are one of them).
Once HCR passes or fails, we still have 3 years of this guys bad decisions/votes to deal with. As much as I would like to crap on Obama/Reid/Pelosi’s day, if it means voting for this really, really bad choice, it’s just not worth it to me.
I actually heard some talk about the whole health care crap being repealed if Repugs take over! Of course, I also heard that there’s a provision in the bill that PREVENTS that…
What a damned mess! Wimpy Dems could have given us single-payer which actually had the support of the public and even some doctors’ groups…The momentum was completely screwed up by the Democrats, deliberately!!!
Coakley is still supporting public option.
Reid etc are trying to make it harder to later overturn SOME provisions of the HC bill, but I bet that’s unconstitutional!
I am with you on this samanthasmom. As with HRC’s convention decision, it would be political suicide for Martha to oppose the entire Dem Party with virtually no support. It’s asking an awful lot from one person who has never been elected. She’s a human being, not Joan of Arc. So what’s the answer? To send a message and instead, install a proud bigot in the Senate? I know people don’t want to throw women under the bus, and believe me–I get it, but consider this: you are throwing gays under the bus. I am deeply offended by Brown. This whole thing makes me despise the DNC and Obama more–THEY CREATED THIS CLIMATE!
But she did oppose the entire party at the Convention. Martha voted for Hillary!! And she fought for FL and MI votes to be counted. And for that, I will vote for her.
I know. I meant that Hillary didn’t split at the Convention, and Martha has switched on her opposition to this health care piece of crap. I just think it’s asking a lot for one person to do a kamikaze before she even gets started. Since she has shown she can fight, get her into the Senate, where she can do it with the support of other colleagues. I would love the Frank Capra version of politics–to have one brave, pure soul take on the entire system–but it’s just not realistic. We can’t throw out the baby with the bath water. If that person comes along, believe me, I’ll be marching in the streets for him/her, but this is the choice we have right now.
I know. I wasn’t “yelling” at you. I’m just freaked out generally.
These are all important points, but I’m concerned that Coakley’s past actions aren’t really a good guide to her future actions, including her willingness to stand up for us, ever.
When Coakley stood up for Clinton regarding the convention, she wasn’t having to play on the national level Democratic stage yet. She had a lot of support from Mass. voters (who had, after all, voted for Clinton by 10 points). The voters of Mass. were her ‘bosses’ at that point, that’s who she was beholden to, and who she had to make happy.
Well now she has new bosses. We’ve seen that they’e h*llbent on destroying any liberal brand, moving the country rightward, and above all, engineering a total transfer of wealth from lower and middle-classes to the richest part of the country. They are willing to whip and pressure every single member toward those goals no matter what. It seems rather unlikely that Coakley will stand up to that machine on any issue that counts, based on this recent sell out.
Is it unfair that all of this is coming down on Coakley? Yes. But I as Jane Voter didn’t create this massive clusterfrak (I voted against it). The party did. Perhaps they should do the work of fixing first. Then they can come ask for my vote.
Maybe her kamikaze wasn’t defying the whole DNC establishment. After all, she was doing quite well while Pelosi and the DNCers were endorsing her primary opponent. I think her kamikaze came the minute she backtracked on the health care boondoggle.
If she had stood her ground, the DNC/B0 team would have been pissed, but I bet the voters would have been thrilled.
It seems like voters want to send a big message to the Dem establishment. Coakley lost the chance to be that message, so now people are gravitating to Brown. My take on things from California, for what it’s worth…
Good points, Valhalla.
fif–Thank you for clarifying your position on Brown. It’s one I support wholeheartedly.
Joan was a human being, too. The trick for Martha is to have Joan’s courage while avoiding Joan’s fate. If her courage is to have any meaning for the rest of us, she’s going to have to sidestep the trip to the stake.
If Coakley refused altogeher to vote for ANY HC, they would either prevent her from voting or bribe some GOP to skip the filibuster.
Coakley gave her vote for an IMPROVEMENT in the HC bill — changing the Stupak langauge to something milder. Details at my blog, http://florasteele.blogspot.com
Well, all along the DNC and the Dem elite have smirked “where are you going to go”. A vote for Coakley will continue to prove the DNC right and give them the green light to continue to force the Dem politicians to do what the party wants rather than what the voters want. IF Coakley is defeated perhaps it will help other Congress critters to grow a spine.
I’m not saying you should or should not vote for her but simply stating the DNC is correct when they say “they will come home”.
how about we hold the people responsible for this legislation responsible and remember that Martha hung in with Clinton through the convention.
But Martha went along with the people reponsible for this legislation, and has proudly said she’ll vote for it, if elected.
Doesn’t that mean she will be responsible, too?
Proudly? I wouldn’t say she has acted proud about it. She has seemed very diffident to me. She has obviously been threatened.
I watched the debate, BB.
It was proudly. She’s counting on Obama supporters to win, now that she’s lost Independents.
Coakley did stand up for women — by refusing to vote for a HC bill including Stupak-type restrictions, and holding out for one less restrictive.
As others have said, if she came out against both versions, Reid would simply prevent her voting at all, and the bill would pass anyway. And if Brown wins, we’d have a GOP anti-choice pig as Senator.
Should have added this one too.
“In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.
…
But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.
It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.
Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.
…
”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/
Coakley’s husband is/was a police investigator?
I don’t think so.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8567564.html
He was. Don’t know if he still is.
looks to me like you are a republican troll (or leftist troll, same thing really) here to campaign against the democrat.
Feel free to debate me on the merits of my argument. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it and change my view. Ad hominem attacks get no traction however.
Poplicola is not a troll. Stop the name-calling please. No more of that.
I’ve seen this floating around too. This is a horribly skewed article.
The first problem is that prosecutor’s don’t control grand jury verdicts, as this implies. (if they could, they wouldn’t need to bother with grand juries in the first place).
Second, cherry-picking among thousands of cases in which Coakley’s office did successfully prosecute and punish criminals, including sex offenders, is highly problematic. If you’re going to go digging only for reasons to oppose Coakley, please come up with actual data that Coakley was soft on sex offenders as a trend. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Third, most people do not understand bail hearings. They think it’s like Law and Order, with all sorts of moralistic speechifying. It’s not. A bail hearing is to establish the conditions under which the defendant must be put to make sure he/she shows up for trial. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUILT OR INNOCENCE. The severity of the crime charged (and it’s worth remembering we have that little old innocent-until-proven-guilty thingie in our courts) is only a factor as far as it speaks to whether the defendant will show up to trial.
Fourth, as Coakley says, it’s not uncommon to have to bring a case before more than one grand jury to get an indictment. The part of the article you did not mention is that it was Coakley’s office which did secure a grand jury indictment in this very case, which enabled her successor to even take the case to trial.
This article is trying to twist a single case into some gigantic personal and professional horror to hold against Coakley. I find it pretty telling that out of thousands of sex abuse cases prosecuted by Coakley’s office over the years, they could only come up with one example to show she’s what… soft on crime? Please.
Points well taken, and thanks for taking care to explain it to me; I didn’t know how that system is set up.
poplicola — I’m sorry if I sounded terribly crabby there. I’m just so fed up with how badly journalists ‘report’ on these things. The Globe’s no fan of Coakley’s and it’s esp. telling that this article popped up just now.
The thing is I’m having a hard time persuading myself to vote for Coakley at this point, but I really really don’t want to see anyone vote/not vote for her based on the lazy, cr*ppy stuff that passes for news reporting these days. My blood boils. Maybe I should just stay home from voting for my health. Seems like I’ll need every help I can get if hcr passes.
No problem, no apology necessary. It would be easier for all of us to laugh at how crazy all of this is if it wasn’t so damned important.
I thought the Globe endorsed Coakley. I’ve had to read an awful lot of different sources to figure out who’s who in this race, and Mass politics are more complex than ours out here.
I did see something funny on another blog describing this race:
Obama’s unicorns are coming home to roost.
Ted Kennedy himself almost lost reelection in the 90s. Massachusetts does elect Republicans in state-wide elections. But Brown is a long way from the old kind of liberal Republicans.
It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to me.
And it was BC who came in and helped him win from what I have read.
Usually only governors though. The last Repub senator was Ed Brooke. And he would be a Democrat today.
Check this out: they are already preparing the spin so they can declare: NOT OBAMA’S FAULT! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! He is such a &#$! coward.
Massachusetts: ‘Bottom has fallen out’ of Coakley’s polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama
Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. “I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose.”
Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor’s race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama’s policies or those of the national Democratic party.
“If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there,” the Democrat says. “If they don’t think she can win, he won’t be there.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massachusetts-Bottom-has-fallen-out-of-Coakleys-poll-numbers-Dems-prepare-to-explain-defeat-protect-Obama-81681862.html
they have been doing this for days on the pundit shows…. blaming her while it is so obvious that democrats all over the country are disappointed by the Obama admin and disgusted with the health care plan as well as the bailouts.
Gawd, but BO is a total chickensh!t.
And Deeds lost because lifelong Dems, like me and my husband, are so disgusted that we stayed home on election day.
If BO showed up, Martha would be dead in the water. It seems she doesn’t understand that though.
I just got Obama’s robocall on Martha’s behalf. Sigh. It didn’t help with me. (actually, it does nothing either way for me, but it could motivate some ofb to go to the polls, we still have plenty of those around).
Coakley would have been a scapegoat either way. If she had opposed Obama on this (as she should have, if she wanted to be taken seriously as someone who stands on principle),she would have been in for a smear campaign from hell, coming from the left. Her own party’s activist base would have been smearing her as the one, who if elected, would ruin Obama’s presidency and be dishonoring Kennedy’s legacy.
And now that she flipped on it for the Party’s support, they are preparing to throw her under the bus. These people are despicable. Can you imagine the Clintons ever doing that to another loyal Dem in their administration?
This admin, and its fearful leader, are the lowest of the low. As a DTI (dem to indep, though I haven’t changed my reg yet) I despise them.
Maybe all these bad polls will scare Dems to turn out for Coakley.
I had that thought too Wonk. The big story here is that it’s a toss-up at all, and for them to claim that it has nothing to do with Obama is just stunning. They are starting to look as/more desperate than Bush. As people were waving to helicopters for help outside the stadium in LA, Bush was declaring, “Heck of a job Brownie.” That’s what this crew looks like now. We’re losing jobs, houses, futures, and they are crowing about “green shoots!” Bizarro World.
The only thing that could save Coakley now is if Hillary comes along with Bill to Mass.
Hillary is out of politics… but hopefully Bill showing up will be a reminder to enough Hillary supporters.
She can’t come in person, bb. She can’t actively campaign because of her Cabinet position. But Big Dawg can certainly remind the voters that Martha stuck by Hillary to the end and did not throw the Mass. voters under the bus.
I think, if it’s done just exactly right, this could be the opening shot of a revolution within the Dem party. If BD (and Hillary, by proxy) can get Martha across the finish line when BO clearly can’t, and in fact is a detriment to her–and with BO daily sinking further into the tar pit–his corporate sponsors are going to be shopping for a candidate to replace him. There just might be enough room for a populist uprising to to force its way through and get the party back. This is where I like Violet Socks’ idea of maintaining a bloc within the party as well as exerting pressure from outside.
Why can’t she? (Setting aside her priority on Haiti right now)
” Violet Socks’ idea of maintaining a bloc within the party as well as exerting pressure from outside.”
I agree. When the Dem Party falls apart, we need some good people in it to pick up the pieces.
Interesting Okasha. If Bill pulls it out, that’s another wrinkle in the story and people will remember Bill (and Hillary by extension) as the one’s who didn’t bail on a person when she was down.
As opposed to B0, who can’t wait to bail and is prepping for it already. Well, our country is in trouble: who ya gonna call? Hillary, if your scenario plays out.
policola, Hillary can’t campaign because she’s a civil servant. Government employees, as opposed to elected officials, are generally forbidden to express political preferences in public because that behavior can be read as government endorsement of a candidate.
Now, they can do whatever they like in private and on their own time, so it wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary’s personal cell phone, paid for by her and used from home, is rather busy to Mass. for the next few days.
I think Hill is working around the clock on the disaster in Haiti—and that is maybe more important than “Ted Kennedy’s senate seat”. But you know that she would make a personal comment on this, if asked. I think they deliberately keep her out of it.
The DNC and Obama are desperately trying to believe that none of these losses (or potential losses) are a referendum on Obama, the DNC, or the HCR bill.
They are in total denial, because these elections ARE a referendum on Obama and his noodem party politics. That’s exactly what they are. What I am hearing from people (other than the wingers) is not that they are thrilled with R politics either. It’s that they want to slap this clueless, out-of-touch, bought-by-the-banks party IN POWER, and hard. They’ll worry about the R’s later.
I’m hearing lots of talk form the vast moderate middle about throwing EITHER party out like clockwork for a few cycles, until they figure they’d better listen. And the party that gets a clue fastest, and starts listening, will be the one that wins long-term.
There is not really a Republican resurgence here – that’s not where this is coming from. There is a populist resurgence, but the Dems are the first target because they are currently holding all the culpable cards at the moment.
People aren’t stupid, they are waking up to the ping pong game. They know Brown is no hero. But they are voting to flex THEIR muscle, not back this or that machine. They’ll vote his ass out right quick again if he and the GOP misread that message.
Well said. I think you’re right.
And don’t forget, this is just a two-year term so perhaps making it more palatable to vote for Brown to send a message to the administration.
Bravo. Absolute truth. Damm, you’re good.
I am sure that the Obama people (knowing what slugs they are) have orchestrated the collapse of Coakley. THINK ABOUT IT! They do not want her. They do not want 60 votes. They want to “HAVE” to capitulate to the republicans. Why else would they have injected themdelves into the race and made her make the worst decisions possible for her. It is so KKKArlRovian. They always use his thinking as their model for governing. VOTE FOR COAKLEY…Just to screw with the DNC and 0bama.
Why is the MSM piling on? Just like the Hillary Pile on. Makes me way suspicious of this surge.
I’ve had the same thought. Obama has to hate Coakley for fighting him all the way to the Convention and then badmouthing his health care bill. If only she had stuck to her guns!!! I wonder what they threatened her with?
And he is, as we know, very, very vindictive.
The DNC is probably hard at work plotting who will be her primary oponent when/if she wins on Jan. 19.
Good points. The Obama/Kennedy faction opposed Coakley in the Dem primary. She did not rubberstamp their HC as other Dim candidates did, she said she would vote against it if the final version included the Stupak anti-abortion language.
Because she stood up to them, apparently the final version will NOT include Stupak.
As one of the majority of Americans who oppose the health insurance/Pharma scam bill, I strongly support Scott Brown to raise enough hell to stop that travesty. If Marha Coakley had said, I will vote for the bill ONLY if the women’s health needs are met and the bill is reduced to 100 pages maximum and all Americans have one month to read it, I’d strongly support her.
We the People in all 50 states need each other to restore our government of the peoople, especially since bho the fraud and his 57 Islamic states are steadily foisting fascism on us.
You are talking about a one issue decision then. Brown brings a lot of other right wing votes with him into the Senate–votes that will continue to undermine the rights of women, gays, the poor and middle class etc.
Brown will do more to hurt abortion rights than Coakley’s vote on the health care travesty.
If you said brown WANTS to hurt abortion rights more than Coakley, I would agree. But WILL Brown do more to hurt abortion rights? As far as I can tell, Coakley will vote for the Nelson amendment, which WILL hurt abortion rights. And with a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Brown won’t have much power to do anything.
I think Brown is despicable, but I really don’t know if the effect of actual policy coming out of Washington will be any different regardless of who wins. And I just don’t know if I can vote for a Democrat who would vote to restict women’s rights. That’s why i just don’t know if I will hold my nose and vote for Coaklay, or stay at home on Tuesday and cry.
I guess you’re forgetting that our President isn’t really pro-choice.
Our President is not really pro gay marriage, either, BB. So when you’re bashing Brown, bash The One too.
If the Dem party was pro choice, would we even he having this discussion? If Obama was pro choice, would Stupakistan even be an issue?
I think the saving grace for you MA folks is that whatever decision you make you have a chance to test it over the next 2 years and do a course correction either way. Too bad The Third Party doesn’t have a candidate ready for you.
another campaign aid for Brown heard from.
Were you looking for the redstate blog?
As RD says all the time, you own your vote.
She also says to resist blackmail.
Smart girl, RD.
Wups, you gave it all away in that last paragraph, TP.
Only rightwing ratfuckers push the Obama-is-a-Muslim meme.
Coakley is holding out for improvements in the HC bill. She’s already said she will vote against it if it includes Stupak. She’s also still promoting public option. See her website.
Like I said, Bizarro World…
Obama tells Dems that economy, healthcare will help in midterms
President Barack Obama rallied House Democrats Thursday around the healthcare bill and an economy he said will improve as they head into a midterm election campaign.
Obama said that the legislation Congress passed since he became president is moving the economy forward and that Republican opposition to the healthcare bill will buoy Democrats in November.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76209-obama-tells-dems-that-economy-healthcare-will-help-in-midterms
Is he insane? Seriously.
Oh no BB…it’s ALL going to turn around…just wait and see. The economy is going to come surging back, and health care will be a huge success! You just have to have…
hope.
Dems who still have Hope are the ones who think putting Obama on the ballot (i.e. making the midterms about Obama) is a winning strategy.
hope and change in action!
Nope. Just arrogant and out of touch with everyday Americans.
And desperate, by now.
Where else are you going to go?
This is a perfect set up with the blackmail over women’s rights in play, with a candidate that seemed perfect earlier. Then she tossed out women’s rights for Obama right in front of our faces, showing the corrupt Obama/DNC cronies were in control and would continue to do anything they wanted.
If we think about the bigger picture, then if the blackmail continues to work, expect the “new” Democrats to continue their corruption, especially at the cost of human rights and “old” Democratic principles. Others have said the message wouldn’t get there because there would be denial, rationalization, etc., etc. I don’t agree. I think it’s clear this is a referendum on HCR and to some extent Obama. I think that message would go through.
But when thinking about the local picture, well, blackmail works. Brown would be horrible. As horrible as the predicament is, and how much I’d like to help change the DNC, I would probably vote for the D here. Well, that’s my thinking today. I might change that at the last minute too.
I’ll probably be dithering right up till Tues. I am so tempted to sit on my hands, but I don’t want to deal with Brown.
I completely understand your predicament, BB. I went through similar angst in the Virginia governor’s race. On the one hand, I wanted Deeds to lose because he was the candidate hand-picked by Kaine/Obama, and I wanted the Dems to lose in Virginia to stick it to the party which has taken my vote for granted all these years, but on the other hand, I couldn’t stand the thought of voting for the conservative Republican running against Deeds. In the end, my vote didn’t matter because McDonnell had such a huge lead in the polls over Deeds, but when I got into the voting booth, I voted for Deeds. I just couldn’t vote Republican, and I figured that not voting for either would have just given McDonnell and even bigger margin of victory.
I’m glad I don’t live in Mass. I don’t know what I would do.
Thanks for the moral support. I’d never in a million years vote for Brown, but I will really have to hold my nose to vote for Coakley. I can’t believe how betrayed I feel by her.
I’m in Boston too, BB, and feel totally the same way. I really don’t know what to do.
OT in a big way, but I told you she was an opportunist, a liar, and not a real foodie.
LOL.
I wondered how they would work that out.
From the article:
Except for one thing: As first reported on AOL’s Politics Daily blog, the fruits and vegetables used on the show weren’t from the White House. They were stunt produce. Ringers.
Ringer produce to go with the ringers in the WH.
“What fresh hell is this?” Not original but seems fitting to the situation. Day after day, situation after situation. All predicted except maybe we did not realize the depths they could take us to. No amount of spinning is going to cover this up and no one is fooled by their use of the Clintons nor will they be blamed for the losses. The Dem’s are commiting suicide – trying to use the only decent D’s to date fix their dilemma after trashing them?
What fresh hell is this?
For me, it is very hard to accept any politician, let alone a female politician in the Democratic Party, who would vote to restrict any right for my sex. And I absolutely will not accept any demand, by the Obama Wing, to participate in this subjugation, this dis-empowerment of women, like Coakley, from the former power Base of the Democratic Party.
In 2010 I too will need to make this choice for or against a women I have supported, campaigned for ,contributed to, and my vote will absolutely rest on this issue. To me there must be consequences, or as women we no longer stand equal.
So you support Brown, who is a neanderthal on women’s rights?
…. no I don’t support Brown but I no longer support Coakley either. I am not in Mass to vote but I had contributed via Emily’s List to her because of her stance on Stupak her flip for me is unacceptable.
Coakley didn’t flip, the Dims flipped and took Stupak out of the bill. Her stance had that result. She is pushing further, for public option etc.
If she pushes unrealistically, they’ll prevent her from voting and go back to Stupak.
Well said, peep.
You can choose to stay home if voting for Brown is too much of a reach.
It is YOUR choice. Your vote belongs to you, as RD says.
I think Clinton should stay as far away as possible…he’ll be blamed if she loses…
Besides, I’m still not pleased that the Clintons are still playing with the Obama crowd. I think it hurts both of them in the long run…Hillary is fine as SOS, they love her at State, but it still doesn’t make me rest easy at all. I really should stop clinging, however, to the first reaction that the Clintons are much different from any other pols, though!! LOL! I know they aren’t!
Coakley was there for the Clintons all the way to the Convention. Bill always honors those who supported Hillary by campaigning for them. It’s about Martha, not O.
Imo the Clintons want Martha to win so she can support them in the Senate as she did in Denver.
Whatever their reasons, I’m with the Clintons, as usual.
Scott Brown is good looking and has that “cool” thing the way people do when they’ve been desired all their lives. Martha Coakley is a middle aged competent school marm.
I’ve always thought the whole Kennedy thing had more to do with the perception they were cool than anything about their politics.
If voters keep going for cool, then they are getting the government they vote for–the cold shoulder from DC is what all that coolth turns into sooner or later.
I don’t think he’s “cool.” There is something *off* about him in the same way there is something *off* about Mitt Romney. Brown is very creepy looking and acting, IMO.
I don’t think he’s cool… but then I didn’t think Obama was cool either.
No, Obama is a dork just like Brown.
And she’s a woman, obviously. Massachusetts has never elected a woman senator. It might just be all about misogyny.
If she loses, how easy will it be for the party poobahs to say that women just don’t make good candidates.
exactly.
Clinton can’t help her.
Coakley’s stuck in quick sand.
I think her best hope right now is really bad weather on election day.
Do you wanna bet? Are you in MA? If not, you have no idea what Clinton could do.
Wow.
I live in CT and NY, so I guess when we disagree about something happening in those states my opinion will be worth considering and you’ll “have no idea” what’s going on.
Don’t see why you had to be so hostile and dismissive.
Maybe I really am upset about the prospect of having a wingnut represent me in the Senate. And I’m tired of people who don’t live in MA trying to manipulate our politics. Things are bad enough here without ending up with a creep like Brown representing us in DC.
And I’m also getting tired of people who dismiss the views of those of us who actually live here. I was tired of it back when people here were defending the racist Cambridge Police. If this were about TX or CT politics–or NY, I’d listen to the opinions of people who lived there and not try to pretend I know more.
I’m not in MA, but I think Clinton will help. For instance, from the Globe:
“Bill Clinton is a rock star in Massachusetts,’’ said US Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Malden, predicting that the last-minute surge of national Democratic help will seal the election for Coakley. “The Democratic base now has the activating fluid’’ to get out the vote, he said. “ The Democratic activists are now up and working, energized, and ready to go.”
“The White House and Democratic officials are continuing to struggle with the question of whether to bring Obama to the state, the Globe reports this morning.”
http://tinyurl.com/yg7vwn8
Of course he’ll help. And if he brought Hillary with him, it would help even more. The Clintons are very popular here. Hillary won our primary by 15 points, even with all the Dem honchos against her.
Hillary won’t come. From earlier reports, Bill was going to do a fund raiser, not a campaign rally. I am not sure funds will help Coakley at this point. (I am not in VA, not MA – so my MA news is from this blog and national news sources.)
in VA, not MA
If Bill is a “rock star” in MA… no wonder the Kennedys hated him so much??
Not enough kewlness to go around.
Just sayin’
Well, yes….Massachusetts went strongly for Hillary.
But that didn’t stop Kerry and Kennedy from knifing her anyway, and ignoring the wishes of the voters.
Maybe I am a single issue guy (and my issue is Hillary, the next FDR), but I do think Coakley’s loss will bring Hillary back. Brown’s win will break the sickly healthcare bill, put a stop to Obama’s slo mo, and events will spin out of anyone’s control. Dems will lose big in ’10, will lose the house and 2012 will be a open game. Maybe Obama may choose not to run or be forced to withdraw. Economy and things will be so bad, they will turn to Hillary.
Sometimes you DO have to destroy the village to save the village.
I don’t live in Mass.. If I were, I’d write in “None of the above.
I am afraid the referendum on the HCR will play in the NY elections this fall as well – and will give NY the Wall Street candidate Harold Ford (he may shamelessly front for corporations but he also has the smarts to oppose HCR). There’s no good way to vote here, my sympathy to the voters of Mass.
Thank you.
I don’t envy you right now. I’m in CA and happy I don’t have to make the choice you’re facing.
BTW – I generally don’t express an opinion in elections I can’t vote in and I find it annoying when outsiders express a preference in elections here.
Thanks. That is what is bugging me. If you were trying to decide whether to vote for Barbara Boxer, I wouldn’t pretend I knew the issues better than you did.
Me too, bb. My heart goes out to you. I may not know the issues in MA but I do feel your pain. And I wish I was there to pull the lever for Coakley.
I’m gonna laugh my ass off if Arlen Spectre loses to the GOPers in November though.
Nope. Ford has shot himself in the foot this week with his revealing NY Times interview, and the backlash from liberals. Average NY voters are not going to vote for some new guy who works for Merrill Lynch, rides around with hedge fund managers in helicopters, and gets pedicures. Ford’s done.
BB you know were Coakley really stands on the issues we care about and you know she has been put in bind about it by the DNC and the WH. One way to look at it is she will do the right thing when she has developed a power base in DC or connected to one that exists or will exist.
We have a great woman running in MO against a complete jackass corruption machine: Robyn Carnahan -Dem/ Roy Blunt- Rep. I like all of you want so much to send Washington a message about taking us for granted but I find myself getting ready to sign up to work for her. I’m going to have to drag myself because I am very pissed at the Dems.
If they both won it would be two more women who have been on the right side of the issues for their whole careers. Numbers matter.
I agree with this assessment. It’s very difficult to get anything done as a lone voice–even with years of seniority. We have to build a block of support–many women in Congress–to advance our rights.
Those are good arguments. Thanks.
Wonders never cease: B0botland is slowly becoming PUMAtized by the Mass elections(and HCR)
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/are-b0bots-becoming-pumas/
It’s easy for them to become pumatized if the candidate’s a woman. (for bobots that is.)
Funny how that works, ain’t it?
Time to get tough
Barack Obama’s first year has been good, but not great—and things are going to get a lot harder
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15271012&source=hptextfeature
I don’t live in MA, but if I did, I’d vote for Brown despite the fact that I don’t like him. I am determined that my former party needs their ass whipped but good, to have any chance of cleaning house in the future.
I can greatly respect those who disagree, though, and would ask that they do the same for the others. It’s a Sophie’s choice situation, and there is no truly good course.
Those who would vote for Coakley are not “sellouts” rewarding the Chicago Machine for their thuggery, and those liberals who would vote for Brown are not sellouts going Republican. I don’t like either category being guilted or derided for a tough choice, or for staying home. All three are strategic ways to send various messages,decisions that one has to wrestle with alone.
Thank you. I agree completely.
Touch choices all around, and we need to be fairer about disagreeing .
This blog was founded on the right to disagree.
I don’t envy our Massachusetts people having to make this difficult choice at all. But each separate choice needs to be respected without personal insults.
Thank you, WMCB.
This is an excellent article about the demise of the once great Party:
Stop Coddling Wall Street!
Obama’s call for a new tax on big banks amounts to a fraction of Goldman’s bonuses. Joel Kotkin on how the Democrats have failed to exploit populist outrage.
By all historical logic and tradition, Wall Street’s outrageous bonuses—almost $20 billion to Goldman Sachs alone—should be setting a populist wildfire across the precincts of the Democratic Party. Yet right now, the Democrats in both the White House and Congress seem content to confront such outrageous fortune with little more than hearings and mild legislative remedies—like a proposed new bank tax, which, over the next decade, seeks to collect $90 to $100 billion. This amounts, on an annual basis, to about half of this year’s bonus for Goldman’s gold diggers alone. It’s speaking loudly and carrying a stick made of paper mache.
But this should come as no surprise, really. Postmodern Democrats are generally more concerned about the fate of the polar bears than real people on Main Street.
One reason may be that Democrats increasingly collect the bulk of contributions from the very financial sector that they have bailed out and coddled since taking office. However, more substantially, the Democrats—including many “progressives”—seem more comfortable with big business and high finance than their erstwhile working- and middle-class constituencies. For this, we need the Democratic Party?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-14/stop-coddling-wall-street/
All that is true, of course, but I have a question:
Why are the executives at Fannie & Freddie not being included in the rants about huge bonuses?
Rahm Emmanuel made $6 million in bonuses as an executive at Fannie (maybe it was Freddie) before he was elected to the House, and that was during the blow-and-go years.
Should we claw back some of that, too?
Good question. Fannie/Freddie still appears to be a house of cards. Rahm could be on the line for his time as board member. But nobody wants these executive positions at Fan/Fred now. Must be pretty ugly for the CFO to have hung himself last year. So they are paying people big packages to agree to go along with some unsavory things for which they may eventually have to testify to Congress. Not a good situation.
…If Brown actually wins on Tuesday, this will rank as one of the most astounding upsets in modern times..Larry Sabato
…..and empower the American Electorate IMHO
I am glad that I don’t live in Mass. Tuesday’s vote would create a lot of angst. I sent money to Coakley for the primary, for two reasons 1) she opposed the Obamacare scam and the Dem leadership didn’t want her. Well she showed that she lacks the courage of her alleged convictions.
The health scam will pass no matter what but there is more of the same coming from Obama and the Dems leadership. “Climate Change”, or as Obama sees it “let the private markets regulate CO2″ another massive transfer of wealth to corporations.
Brown would throw a wrench into the gears. The Dems are corrupt and the Rethugs are evil…what a choice.
Coakley supported both Obamacare and Cap and Trade in the debate.
TeresaINPa, on January 15th, 2010 at 10:00 am Said:
just out of curiosity, what is your political affiliation?
She saw the man on the ground, she may very well not seen what put him there.
Reply
poplicola, on January 15th, 2010 at 10:03 am Said:
American.
yup hes a rep aka conserv
Well intentioned debate is better than group think imho.
I agree.
Me too. Pros and cons on ALL candidates makes for better informed citizenry.
Sad for MA. This issue is here because the Dems are no longer Dems. Tough choice as a protest is in order and the Dem machine needs to be stopped if not slowed down. But a Republican senator in MA? Thanks Obama.
Voldemort pens op-ed in today’s WaPo:
Neither Rove nor Axelrod can be trusted with their views on the deficit. They will always misrepresent difficult and real fiscal challenges for political advantage. As operatives, by definition they cannot be part of any serious economic planning or solutions.
I don’t live in MA and am glad I don’t have that choice. My anger at the Dims since 2008 is ongoing and unrelenting. Really wish I could feel better about M. Coakley since she showed character by supporting Hillary…………..but maybe, just maybe, the Dims need to lose this. The Clintons will always have my support and Bill campaigning for Coakley shows that they don’t throw their supporters under the bus. Brown…………well…..I’ll just say again……darned if he wins, darned if she wins.
Sorry Bill, you can’t help in this fight. When your party stabbed your wife, they also stabbed me.
Interesting thread. Thanks you all!
I don’t live in MA. So I can avoind the angst. But if I did I know how I’d vote. My number one rule is “when in doubt, vote for the woman!” And in this case there is plenty of doubt to go around.
What really irks me though… is the damage Mr. Obama is doing to the women of our party. By making them “choose” between no health care bill and a bill that curtails their own reproductive rights. That is truly a rock and a hard place to choose between. And I can clearly see that it will destroy many a fine political career.
Hillary was uber wise to get herself in a position where she does NOT have to vote on any of this mess. She will come away from the failure with a clean and truly progressive record.
TeresaINPa, on January 15th, 2010 at 10:00 am Said:
just out of curiosity, what is your political affiliation?
**********
Me??? Registered Dem….I am sticking with the party and hoping that there are enough “old” Dems left, inorder to stage a counter-coup.
Isn’t it really that Obama, Reid, Kennedy and Pelsoi and Clyburn, along with their tools at DNC, choose to use the nuclear option of inter party warfare pitting Dem Demographic against Dem Demographic using race and grievance as a weapons to divide to conqueror? Winning ugly mattered, it must, and severe consequence must also be the result to right the wrong. Obama, Reid and Pelsoi must go for the Party to ever heal if it can.
Yes, I agree about Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Reclaiming the Democratic party is one thing. But fighting for women’s equality and rights, though related, is a mission unto itself. I’m not in MA, but it does matter to me whether Coakley or Brown is in the Senate for three years as far as the cause for women go.
Totally agree with Coakley’s comment (re: conscience clause-like legislation) that people whose religious beliefs prohibit them from dispensing emergency contraceptive care should not work in emergency rooms.
If your job requires you to provide emergency care and you CAN’T, then you need a different job.
I am not willing to bend on this.
However.
Brown’s amendment that would have allowed workers to refrain from providing care that conflicted with their religious beliefs was removed from the bill he is now being roasted for.
And he voted FOR it anyway.
He’s not the religious loon the media is trying to make him out to be. He has shown that he can learn and be flexible.
The media is so hell bent on getting the damned Obamacare legislation passed that they are making up all sorts of things to paint him as anti-choice.
And he is not. He’s said he was pro choice many times.
Democrats scream that Repubs aren’t “moderate.”
Well, here we have a moderate. And he’s being smeared.
His positions are pretty mainstream. especially compared to some Democrats!
The MA pro-contraceptive bill of 2005 passed the MA legislature by unanimous vote, and overrode Romney’s veto.
Brown gets no credit for going along with a unanimous majority instead of being a lone hold-out.
What Brown does own, is the amendment he wrote and filed, which would have made emergency contraception LESS available by allowing any anti-choice staff person of any claimed religion at any hospital to refuse to give the contraceptive — and letting victims be ‘referred to another facility.’
okasha skatsi, on January 15th, 2010 at 12:07 pm Said:
So you’re going to reward Brown for his bad behavior, catarina? Since when is calling LGBT’s “abnormal” not bad behavior?
_________________________________
It was the Dems who told me to stay home. It was the Dems who trashed my candidate in 2008.
And no, I did not forget.
I owe them nothing.
Party Unity My Ass.
Obedient, aren’t you?
Do you think you owe nothing to your fellow citizens who will continue to be relegated to third-class status by Brown and people like him?
Make that people like you, if you support him.
She owes YOU her vote?
A liberal or democrat (small d, note) owes democratic principles her vote. That includes equal rights for all citizens.
On what grounds should I consider someone who supports a bigot not to be a bigot him/herself?
I don’t defend Brown or his statements about gays. But I wonder about absolute classifications of bigotry. For instance, there seems to be no blogger on the web campaiging harder for Brown than Hillbuzz, under Hillary’s banner no less. I wish they would drop Hill’s name, but are they bigots? The ad hominem is out of line imo.
They’re Republicans.
And no, I don’t even try to make sense of the Log Cabin crowd.
But Okasha, the NEW Democratic party led by Barak Obama doesn’t live up to democratic principles anyway.
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. He wouldn’t even allow anyone to photograph him with the gay mayor of San Francisco.
Who’s the REAL bigot, dear?
Brown for one. He’s the one up for election now.
Coakley won’t be a Claire McCaskill …
I wasn’t aware that Obama is a bigot–but now that I am, I’ll be happy to stop supporting him.
The way I see it,—- it will all depend on what the voters in Massachusetts really need and want.
Do they need/want more taxes, big government spending on wealthy banks and corporation, and health care insurance that will cost them a small fortune then they will vote for Coakley?
If they need/want to put a STOP to Obama and his Deceivers then they will vote for Scott….
The ball is in your court Massachusetts and the whole world will be a witness to your wisdom !
Coakley’s connection to the horrible Amirault case makes me feel queasy about her. I followed Amirault and the other daycare witch hunts at the time and there is no question that a monumental miscarriage of justice happened there, and that Coakley was instrumental in keeping innocent people in prison. Worse: People that she knew were innocent (there was not one shred of credible evidence pointing to any of the Amiraults’ guilt, not one.) Her prosecution of Louise Woodward falls into that category too.
Over at BTD, Jeralyn has urged non-support of Coakley for her stances on criminal justice issue, noting that as a Senator she will probably serve on committees that deal with justice and crime policies. OTOH, BTD and other TL posters have pointed out Coakley’s stances on women’s issues, abortion rights, and other issues.
I think it’s a tough call for MA residents.
Have you seen what Valhalla found out about this kind of story? I reposted her post and a link to more at my blog:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6439286706248729313&postID=4004910288899483000
Why Obama Must, And Shouldn’t, Go To MA
If it were just the Republicans here in MA that hated Obama, I don’t think that would be a big deal. But there are a lot of liberal Dems here who are also really ticked off at him. I think that’s the real reason he’s staying away.
Given how far to the left MA is overall, a 55% approval rating is quite low for a Democratic president here I think.
Intensity seems to be the issue to me. His support is not very deep or intense but those who don’t support him are really angry and determined to do something about it. Considering, it’s really understandable and I think it’s a losing situation for Democrats. Though I still think Coakley will pull this one off and win anyway. The built-in advantages are huge.
Boston Globe breaking news:
“Obama to campaign for Coakley Sunday”
President Obama plans to visit the state Sunday to campaign for Senate candidate Martha Coakley, according to a senior Democratic official.”
This makes it more interesting for those of us outside MA.
Booze and popcorn is flying off the shelves all around the country.
Hi pop! As soon as Brown wins, we’re all going to start contributing to his Presidential fund. If this doofus can become Senator, he can become President. So laugh it up, because your time is coming. We will get the karmic smackdown, just watch us.
This is going to hurt Coakley, no? Can’t imagine anyone who’s a BO supporter having been for Brown in the first place. But I can imagine many undecideds seeing BO’s visit as a referendum on the HC bill. Maybe he’s looking at turnout.
Turnout is everything in this election.
More money pleas from Coakley…this is desperation:
(snip)
” One more time I need to ask for your help.
In the last two days both Vicki Kennedy and Ted Kennedy, Jr. have spoken up about the importance of this race and protecting Senator Kennedy’s legacy.’
(snip)
Geez, Teddy’s legacy is his legacy, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it now. The seat belongs to the people of MA, not to the Dems, and not to the Kennedy’s. The voters in MA will decide, and it’s a tough enough decision without all the emotional pleadings attached.
This is an email I sent to Coakley’s campaign (you may not agreee with what I said but it’s what’s important to me)
“If Martha wants to win this election, she should renounce her support for
the health insurance company bailout, otherwise known as health insurance
reform. That would be much more effective than saturating the airwaves with
ads.
Changing her previous stance from opposing this bill -because of the lack of
public option and stupak language -into now supporting it, is costing her
those of us who continue to oppose this horrible bill.
Forcing people to buy very expensive insurance and taxing so called cadillac
plans is not the way to go. Shame on any politicians who support this bill,
you are not working for the citizens, you are working for the insurance
companies, and you are beating down the middle class once again.
I have donated to Martha before the primary, but I am horrified that she has
caved so quickly on this health insurance mess.”
This is the rather prompt reply (which I appreciate) from the campaign:
“Thank you for your email. It is true that Martha would reluctantly
support the Senate healthcare bill. As a person committed to true
reform with a public option, she certainly understands your
disappointment in this decision. However, she is unwilling to thwart
reform altogether. She has long said that she would vote for a reform
bill only if it greatly expands coverage, improves quality and
contains costs. She believes that the Senate bill, while far from
perfect, takes significant steps toward reaching these goals. Further,
she understands that the fight for a better healthcare system will not
end with the January vote. Rather, once the bill is passed, Martha
will continue fight against the tax on Cadillac plans and for more
meaningful health reform that does not, as you fear, amount to a
payout to insurance companies.
The Attorney General will vote to support the present bill if it is
the only foreseeable way to expand healthcare coverage, improve
healthcare quality and curb the rising costs that are threatening so
many individuals, families and small businesses nationwide. And from
that day forward, she will return to work, fighting to implement
reforms that fully address the shortcomings in the present bill.”
What do you think, BB and others?
I’m so fricking confused, I think I’m going with “Vote for the Woman”.
I predict the 2012 election will be just as gut-wrenching as this one, which reminds me of the 2008 debacle, the whole lesser of 2 evils crap choices.
I feel sorry for her. It was always clear to me that she didn’t change her stance on HCR willingly – and this only confirms it. But you are voting for someone to represent you, fight for you – and this is someone who gave up before even being elected to do it.
In a way, I am glad I won’t have to vote in the NY primaries – having left the party. Because the choice is quite similar – a Wall Street candidate (even if he has a “D”) vs a Democratic woman who gave up and voted for HCR.
What disturbs me in the letter is the lack of mention of women’s rights that are undercut by this bill. I seem to recall she spoke for us in the past. I too wrote her on Facebook – repeatedly to drop support for HCR. She chose her allies knowingly, me thinks.
Unfortunately, Brown doesn’t represent my interests either. So how does one pick?
I’m kind of impressed they actually bothered to answer me.
pick by the issue that the election will make or break.
If you want obamacare to pass, vote coak. If you don’t, vote brown.
if obama’s destruction and/or leaving the WH is more important than both of those, vote brown.
He’ll only be a half term senator, so it’s not like you’re putting in a long term republican. So you can vote by picking the issue above.
Here’s some more detail from an earlier letter by Coakley’s campaign. Her opposition to Stupak apparently has got Stupak removed from the final bill. This is important, a change that we would not have had if she had opposed all HC bills unconditionally. In that case they would just prevent her from voting.
there are important distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. [...] the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.
Either one is good for women HOW?
Ruh-roh!
I predict Obama will drive the final nails in Martha’s coffin.
(Sorry BB, but that’s a prediction, not an expression of preference)
He must think it’s winnable or he would never go campaign. See comment above from National Journal where he is radioactive in their polling. Your prediction may be right.
Like he thought Chicago was a shoe-in for the Olympics?
He’s desperate to share the credit if Bill Clinton makes a difference. And he can blame Bill Clinton if Coakley loses anyway.
Obama inherited the “Bush touch.”
Everything he touches turns to shit.
You have such a way with words.
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4726/Obama-elevated-Interpol-over-US-law.aspx
I do not like newt gingrich, any lowlife that can go to his wife’s hospital bed and say see you , wouldn’t want to be you, got a new babe has no redeeming value.
Would the lawyers here explain just what this signing means . Does it take away constitutional rights?
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Interpol is not an investigative agency, they share information between the law enforcement agencies of member nations.
If Glenn Greenwald criticizes the move, pay attention. Otherwise don’t worry.
I agree. Interpol does not preempt any US agency activities here, they do not take people to trial, they share information and extradite. The fuss is a right wing distraction imo.
Myiq2xu
Thank you for your answer.
Maybe I am getting paranoid in my old age but everytime backtrack signs something I want someone with knowledge on the subject to explain.
I have never distrusted a president to do what is in the best interest of the country like I do backtrack.
PS
can anyone tell me of a news site that gathers articles from all over the world? They changed the format on the site newscred that I read everyday. I stopped watching the so-called news channels awhile ago but I still want information on what is happening around the world.
Thank you
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
This is the one I use for newspapers.
http://www.newslink.org/index.html
THANK YOU
I’ve got it! I know what we can do to ensure a Coakley win. Quick, everybody start spamming other blogs and start the meme that Coakley is just playing 11D chess with HRC. We can even add that she learned from The Master.
NYT say’s Obama is fraught with political peril
but aides concluded that Mr. Obama’s fortunes were already tied to the race
that’s a hell of an admission and just what the Republican Base would need to trunout the vote, as well…
I’m an ex-dem (currently unenrolled) Hilary supporter who lives in Mass. I voted for Coakley in the primaries. But, after a gut-wrenching decision, I sent in my absentee ballot voting for Brown several weeks ago, before all this national attention started.
What changed my vote? The night of the primaries, I tuned into local news, just in time to watch Brown’s acceptance speech. I was shocked to hear I agreed with everything he said. ( I hate the crap that is going on in Washington today.) I also thought he was energized and sincere.
Then the station tuned to Coakley’s speech. What we got was 20 minutes of the misogynist Kerry (who, like Kennedy, betrayed Hilary), being an as*hat. He was supposed to be introducing Martha–ha! All he arrogantly lectured us about was the importance of 60 votes for the administration’s agenda. The administration that is currently screwing up this country? Yeah, right.
When Martha finally came on (after not one word of Kerry actually telling us about her, the individual), she gave a most lackluster, pro-party-line rote of a speech. It sucked. It also told me she had sold out for the support of the current administration. Her actions since have continued to tell me so.,
In central Mass, Brown lawn signs are everywhere. Not a Coakley sign to be seen. As a woman, it pains me. But I’m forced to reassess my vow of always voting for a woman everytime. This time the right thing for me to do is to go against this current administration in Washington.
I’m not alone. People in my neck of the woods are rabid democrats, from the cradle. To call yourself “Republican” is socially unacceptable. And yet, I think we very well will be getting a Republican to finish up Teddy’s senate term. The irony is, if he’d resigned when he first got sick, there would be a democrat there today.
As usual you are not going to be able to vote FOR anything. You will be voting AGAINST the worst. I say vote against the Obots and against Obama Care. Women need to be able to purchase insurance that is relevant to their needs without restrictions from the government or the male power structure of someone else’s religion. Vote for Brown and give the Obots a wake up call.
it,s a tough call
I can only imagine the Fall Out if Obama loses both Reid and Coakley. Health Care will fail, Ted Kennedy’s legacy will be buried—as tied to health care reform, and all that “hope and change” will look pretty naive after all.
I will vote for Martha, if only because she stood against the loony Obama-crats at the DNC a couple years ago; and of course, because setting back health care another decade would be quite bad.
My original support of Martha was for the same reason, she backed Hillary till the end and never bowed to the Obama-crats….until now. She’s sworn allegiance to the party, not the Commonwealth. I’m voting for the Commonwealth on Tuesday – and I’m sending a message to DC to stop the bull shit and stop protecting your own interests – EVERY member of the Congress and the Senate and (in 2012) the executive branch – can be served a pink slip. Martha is going to lose, I’m sorry for her – but it’s ‘listen up’ time for DC.
Coakley all the way.
I am tired seeing the left cut it’s nose off time and time again.
Republicans vote all the time for anything.
Democrats stay home and pout when they don’t get their way.
In Fairfield County CT the GOP swept most local offices and councils by wide margins because the Dems stayed home. In 2001, the GOP came out in full force as well as the Dems did and we one many offices and councils.
While imperfect, Coakley is to the left of Obama. That should be reason enough to vote for her.
Scott Brown has said he will block Obama.
With Scott Brown there is not chance of any regulatory reform, which means the economy will NOT improve over the long term.
I’m a life-long dem until Obama. My first time voting republican was against Obama for John McCain. I believed that a person like Obama, who I believe hates this country, should never be elected president. I also believe that the dem party should have been punished for doing what they did to Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately it didn’t happen and Obookie was elected and now resides in the WH making a mess of absolutely everything. He screwed up the stimulus bill so badly and still has the audacity to claim it was a success. In my opinion he needs to leave the WH sooner than later. Now, I live in NYC, so I don’t get to vote, but I AM up here campaigning for Brown. If brown gets in, Romneycare goes in the toilet, i mean, ObieCare goes in the toilet and Obama doesn’t get a 2nd term. I like coakley, well, kind of, but in general I do, and I’m actually sad to have to want Brown to win, i do not agree with him on so many things, but he will be a half term senator and then a dem will take his place in 2012. Obama does not get to have a democratic supermajority because the man is insane and dangerous. the fact that Bill Clinton is STILL being smeared as a racist proves how dangerous Obama really is. Which is why I am doing what I never thought I’d do again, knock on doors and make the dreaded phone calls. But as far as I’m concerned, no person who hates this country as does obama and his wife, should be president, and no one as dangerous as Obama should be running the country.
OT — how to view new posts?
I like the threaded format but when I come back to look for new posts, is there a way to find them other than scrolling all the way through the thread?
I used to have some method of getting posts sent to my gmail where they showed up chronological, but I don’t remember how it worked.
I’m at 1950democrat at gmail com
Do you have the box “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” checked below the reply box? I think that may be the way to do it.
It wasn’t working, but I’ll try something….
A circus has a new baby elephant they have named “Baby Barack”. That is so funny on so many levels that I can not get up off the floor.
From RCP:
Coakley Says Schilling is a Yankee Fan