Coakley's campaign leaves voters in the dark

Brian McGrory got it right: the lack of campaigning is arrogance, Coakley thinks that as a Democrat, the Senate seat is a guaranteed. And that has been most regrettably true in Massachusetts for a long time,four of five decades now. It's like we're some sort of bannana republic here which rich elites rule for life. That may no longer be true! The last thing our whigged-out, 12-trillion-dollar-and-rising-Democrat-ruled Congress needs is ANOTHER liberal Democrat. Vote for Scott Brown!

Martha Coakley has failed to protect the people of Massachusetts, especially the vulnerable ones such as children, women and victims of violent crime. Her office has repeatedly failed to prosecute real wrongdoing or order investigations of wrongdoers under her authority, such as UMass Memorial Medical Center. Her sadistic, ignorant police officers and troopers are malignant political animals, seeking only to defend those with power, including themselves.

Multiple cases of medical fraud have not been investigated as well as violent physician perpetrators associated with Harvard and the state.

Shameful performance as Attorney General.

Coakley will only be a tool of the Democratic Money Machine. Not an advocate for the people. We have all seen this before...

Democrats in Massachusetts chose the wrong candidate in the primary.

Use your vote to write-in Capuano or Khazei or Pagliuca and let Democrats know that their pro-corporate, anti-middle class agenda will cost them dearly.

The Democrats have chosen a pro-corporate, anti-middle class agenda? Really?

Yes. For example, President Obama favors the Senate health bill, which has no Public Option (the house bill does), and state-based exchanges not a Federal exchange (we have that already); and an excise tax on health care insurance that hurts working people, as opposed to the House health bill which has a "millionaire tax" on families making more than $1,000,000 per year and individuals making more than $500,000 per year, and which would still be a lower tax rate than the tax rate on people with that level of income under President Clinton.

Obama's preferred health care policies from the more conservative Senate Bill marginalize the policies written in the house bill and marginalize the power of our elected Congressmen in favor of the power of our elected Senators subject to the will of President Lieberman (I-Aetna) and VP Ben Nelson (D-ProLife).

The individual mandate to buy health insurance from 'private for-profit companies' without the CHOICE of a public option is an insurance industry bail-out of epic proportions. You or your employer will pay $8,000 a year for a policy or be penalized 2% of your gross income collected by the IRS.

The insurance product you buy might have a $4,000 deductible and $30 copays so while you're required to buy health insurance, spending $8,000 a year on it, you still may not be able to afford health care.

And for people who object to financing for-profit health insurance companies profit, under penalty of law, this policy is like requiring cities and towns to hire for-profit Blackwater as law-enforcement, instead of having local police.

Coakley announced first and kept her lead but she's a far cry from the liberal lion whose seat she seeks to fill. Martha is a "special class" liberal for children and elderly but not particularly an advocate for civil rights, restrained government power, limiting the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests or campaign finance reform.

Coakley is a beginner, never having served as a legislator at any level. After making a big statement about voting 'no' on the house bill becuase of Stupak, she has declared her support for the Senate Health Bill without reservation in spite of the lack of Public Option (which she said was important to her) and restrictions on abortion access (which she is not happy about but was willing to accept nonetheless.) Coakley did not even make her support for the Senate bill conditional on addressing those issues she feels strongly about.

Coakley does not speak about civil rights on the campaign trail.

Since she the primary on Dec. 8 she's barely campaigned at all. Martha Coakley is running a box turtle campaign. Let her earn your vote if she wants it.

Why is anyone surprised by the poll numbers?

"As a candidate who has wrestled with pragmatic questions concerning the balance between civil liberties and government authority, first as a career prosecutor and then as the Attorney General, I find it surprising that her positions on these questions remain a mystery."

This has been one of my issues from the get go. She once supported the death penalty under certain circumstances, but now claims she does not -- yet signed on with 18 AGs on an amicus brief to limit intervention by federal courts into death penalty cases. I don't see a liberal here.

She sold Gerald Amirault up the river for political gain despite a mountain of evidence point to his innocence and unanimous votes from his parole board recommending a pardon. I don't see a liberal here.

She publicly supported the Patriot Act, claiming the threats to civil liberties were overstated, until a conservative leaning SCOTUS declared bits of it unconstitutional. I don't see a liberal here.

She has done little to prove to me that she's the right person to follow in Ted Kennedy's shoes, yet my candidate lost in the primary.

Now, I'm too afraid to vote in a democrat that I really don't trust for fear that they will never leave.