Hey, there! Log in / Register
Soliciting direct reasons to vote Coakley
By Anonymous on Sat, 01/16/2010 - 5:12pm
[float=right]
[/float]A lot is being said and written about the effect of a Coakley loss (or win) on Tuesday including:
- the end of health care reform and other Democratic party initiatives over the next two years due to the unity of Republican party opposition and obstructionism in the Senate.
- energizing and legitimizing the Tea Party movement and Republican party opposition twenty months before the midterms
These would be indirect reasons to vote for Coakley. Beyond the effect of an outcome one way or the other and instead, on the merit of the candidate her qualities and positions, what positions or qualities would guide you to choose to vote for Martha Coakley Tuesday?
This question is specifically for people who may or will choose to vote for Martha. Thanks.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Uhhh- at this point- only a
Uhhh- at this point- only a rube votes for a candidate's "positions" or "qualities". Anyone who thinks a politician's "positions" on ANYTHING mean anything is a boob. As for "Qualities"- it is precisely because they lack any redeeming qualities that they are running for the Senate. I will vote for Coakley- despite the fact that I believe her to be a generally reprehensible person whose political persona resembles that of a Brezhnev era incompetent party apparatchik without a conscience- simply because she will bring home the federal bacon fat more effectively than this Brown rube and she will have more clout in DC that hopefully can be used to the region's advantage (though granted with Coakley that isn't a given). Anyone who votes for one of these clowns on a "policy" like "national security" or taxes is an idiot.
legitimizing the Tea Party
How long after 1/20/09 did you wait to scrape off your DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC sticker?
I thought you could read
Dave. Tea party is the fringe of the fringe but if Scott Brown wins then it has some legitimacy. Did you forget Hoffman got his ass kicked by the Democratic candidate in NY-23 or that Lindsey Graham considers them un-serious or that they're lead by Sarah Palin and Dick Armey? They need of win to be considered legitimate.
And for those hard of reading: "This question is specifically for people who may or will choose to vote for Martha. Thanks."
Stay classy, Martha
Staying Classy
I wrote this blog post to solicit reasons from people who are voting for Coakley for affirmative reasons related to her qualities and characteristics. I can see you're determined to hijack the thread.
Scott Brown shows why he failed out of the National Guard JAG
Okay, I'll play
Martha will protect us against the menace of Mooninites, by amending the Patriot Act to mandate the death penalty for possession of "sinister" lightboards with "wires and a battery."
I agree
I'm voting for Martha Coakley because she understands the menace posed by LEDs and home made electronics.
That's some funny shit des n/t
n/t
i agree
Good humor poking fun at Martha.
Threads like this are just asking to be hijacked.
The truth is, there is no reason to vote for her.
She's a horrible candidate
She's a horrible candidate and the state deserves better choices for its representatives. With all our universities and businesses we don't seem to be getting the best and brightest running for political office here. That's rather disturbing in my book.
That's right. I'm a pretty
That's right. I'm a pretty left-wing type of guy, but I can't bring myself to vote for her. Scott Brown has popped my republican cherry, I think.
that would be a big mistake
To be a Democrat and not vote for Coakley is understandable but to be a Democrat and vote for Scott Brown is lunacy. He's pretty far right wing but hey it's your vote. Me? I'm still deciding if Martha gets it so Obama can continue to pass legislation or whether to give it to Capuano or Pagluic as write-ins.
There is Every reason to vote
There is Every reason to vote for her.
If you can look past your immediate dislike and reason that we can put a primary challenger against her if she fails to work hard in 2012. This race is no longer about her, but about Obama's agenda. An agenda MA residents overwhelmingly support.
Tieing his hands by turning congress into a obstruction locked joke isn't going to help get anything we support legislated into law.
Brown has already committed to his teabaggers that he hopes to run as an obstructionist, like the rest of the GOP, on everything that the nation voted for a year ago. It's cynical politics pure and simple. They're preventing anything from getting done, hoping for a disaster, and will then blame it on the Dem's and try to get reelected. And you know what, in a Nation where the patience and attention span is as short as our is, it will work.
A vote for Brown is a vote for the identity politics and 50 +1 partisan war that Rove wrought.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather vote for Coakley so there's a chance of reform and good legislation, then hand it back to the GOP who's made it quite clear they only serve to tear down our president.
thanks anon2
Good compelling argument.
Overwhelmingly support?
What are the poll results on whether or not us Massholes support the healthcare bill? I believe there is an overwhelming disapproval of his agenda.
its about 50-50
the most recent poll had MA voters supporting health care reform 52-48. One before that had them opposing 52-48.
We already have a health care bill and an exchange so what we get in addition with the federal bill is marginal. Plus MA is a donor state (more Federal taxes than Federal aid) so about half Mass residents don;t want other Americans to have what we have.
The lesson from MA health reform is that you have to address cost control as part of the bill. We have he highest insurance premiums in the US.
Sorry can't really think of any lol
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.b...
“You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”
Imagine a Republican saying members of some other religion - Muslims, for instance - should be excluded from, say, boarding a commercial airliner with a one-way ticket, no luggage, and no overcoat for a flight to Detroit.
the malaprop game
If you pin your decision on one misrepresented gaff, you're missing the bigger picture.
What Coakley has advocated is that all women raped can go to emergency rooms anywhere in the Commonwealth and get the emergency pill so they don't get pregnant with the rapists baby.
Someone posed the question about making people with religious objections be the person to give that pill. Coakley believes that the person who dispenses that pill does not have be a person who has a religious objection, and at the same time the women who was raped should be able to go to any ER in Mass and get the pill.
It's really simple, it;s just that Brown filed legislation on the same topic that looks pretty bad for him so they're going after Coakley for what she said to shift the spotlight and apparently, its working (because you bought it.)
Um
No one is saying that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms. I know a great many Catholics who work in emergency rooms and provide medically appropriate and compassionate, skillful treatment to their patients. No one is saying anything about these folks, and it's my hope that they continue to provide this wonderful work.
People ARE saying that Catholics (and anyone else) working in emergency rooms either need to practice based on established medical standards (which state that emergency contraception is safe and legal), or they need to do a type of work where they're willing to follow the code of ethics and the established standards of practice. They need to either decide that their religious practices are exactly that -- theirs, not everyone's -- or they need to find a line of work that they're willing to perform properly.
Brown has sought to downplay his ties to the Tea Party movement
Brown has sought to downplay his ties to the Tea Party movement, a loose network that took root in a series of protests against the federal government last year, promoted by conservative commentators and denounced by liberal ones. “I’ve gotten support from everybody - Democrats, Republicans,” Brown said when asked about national Tea Party support. January 16, 2010
Senator Scott Brown's speech at the Worcester Tea Party on April 15, 2009. Video.
I am voting for Coakley
I am voting for Coakley because I feel that of the three candidates she best represents the values for which I stand.
thanks umar
What are the values Coakley stands for that you feel are important in a Senator?
Coakley
I did not vote for Coakley in the primary, but I am voting for her in the special election on Tuesday. When looking at all three candidates, I see more of the values I hold in Coakley than in either of the other two candidates. She is pro-choice, for equal rights, including for gays, believes more in power to the workers than the power of the corporations, is for habeas corpus and she has shown more of a leader than the other two. She did get money back from the companies form the disaster that was the big dig. She takes a sane approach to terrorism, something the US has been dealing with since before its inception. We should not throw away our values for a few crazies in the world.
all
good reasons to vote for Coakley Tuesday. Thanks Brian S.
well for starters
Crime:
Crime:
Martha refused to investigate ACORN and implement mandatory sentencing for child rapists (Jessica's Law). Under her leadership Mass. is considered the worst 2/3 in the country when comes to protecting our children.
Immigration:
Martha refuses to enforce existing immigration laws and is for amnesty and more tax money to subsidize illegal immigrant benef
Health Care:
Martha has only one problem with the bill as it is written it doesn't clearly fund abortions with tax payer money.
Again she would rubber stamp the current bill which will INCREASE the average premium by $50.00 a week or 2,500 a year. Those who will see the biggest increase in costs are those with Cadillac plans. Guess what union members that means you. But I thought she was pro union yeah and Deval was pro law enforcement and Obama is pro military.
Foreign Policy:
Martha has a sister who lives in Europe.
This, imho; Again she would
This, imho;
is a huge problem with the healthcare "reform" bill that the Obama Administration is about to pass. As I pointed out in another thread, this bill will do nothing whatsoever to reign in healthcare costs, let alone improve the quality of healthcare in this country, and this particular healthcare "reform" bill is going to hurt, rather than help lots and lots of people.
Reasons to vote for
Reasons to vote for Martha
Questions about reasons to vote for Martha
1. Ok I'll play, Do you have a link to a source that shows evidence there was a complaint about ACORN filed in the AG's office?
2. OK, link please.
3. OK link please (Isn't the Federal government responsible for immigration enforcement.) What responsibility does an AG have?
4. True Martha does not like the two-checks rule compromise for women wanted to have abortion services coverage in the Senate bill but she has said she will. Sh also said she prefers a public option which is not part of the bill, therefore, you're "only one problem" statement is not correct.
A likely effect of the excise tax on Cadillac plans is cause consumers to buy fewer Cadilac plans and instead buy less expensive plans except to people who make so much money they don't care about the excise tax.
Yes Coakley Sucks, Yes We Need to Vote for Her
She wasn't my first choice. Far from it.
And if she's elected she has much to prove, or she'll face a primary challenge that I won't hesitate to support.
She's ran a horrible campaign, at times she seems deaf to her constituents, and the MA Dem's should be ashamed of themselves for anointing her as their choice candidate by throwing their blind party voting machine behind her early in the primary; when they should have left it up to the campaigns and the voters of Massachusetts.
But unfortunately for us, and the nation, this election is much bigger the Martha Coakleys ambitions.
With everything to dislike about her, we do know she would be a smart, progressive vote in the United States senate. She would support our president, and those who value reason over hysteria. She supports the agenda that Barrack Obama was overwhelmingly elected to office on. She support health care reform, Reducing green house gas emissions, an overhaul of the financial sector. Obama will need her vote for any meaningful entitlement reform. In fact, issue after issues, she's closely aligned with the wishes of most of the people of the Commonwealth.
Brown, on the other hand, would be a disaster.
He speaks of magical tax cuts [for the wealthy], while having no serious plan for entitlement and spending reform; a recipe for disaster and one of the reasons our infrastructure is crumbling beneath our feet. He believes the Keynesian economics is bunk, and that the government stimulus has done nothing to keep us from teetering over the precipice. His views on abortion and contraception are mixed at best. He's voted pro-choice in the MA legislature, but promises to vote anti-choice when in Washington. He supports a health care plan for MA, but would deny the same sort of plan for the nation, even as it's planned to be deficit neutral.
He offers platitudes that pull at our emotions and outrages, but ultimately are not solutions to the problems facing the nation. And last, he has made it well known that his only goal in congress is to lockstep with republican opposition and vote no on every and all legislation coming through, gumming up the works and making sure that the Democrats can't do anything meaningful for the country. The bet is something bad will happen, and voters will overlook the fact that GOP tied the hands of our legislators through filibusters and noncooperation. That's not governance, it's politics for power.
It's a bet that they can wait out the public displeasure, and run on the failures they caused. How cynical to put party and politics before the peoples work; to work in bad faith in our most cherished of institutions.
Someone once said the politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect. Coakley is far from perfect, but she will work for her constituents in Massachusetts and she will work in good faith with those in Washington.
That's why my I urge to get out and vote for her this Tuesday.
Below, much more eloquently, is whats at stake:
this deserves its own blog post
Think about it. It's easy to do. Get an account. post a blog post with cut(the comment above) and paste it. Excellent. Thank you.
do you have some evidence this is what happened
the party threw their resources behind this candidate in the primary?
"the MA Dem's should be ashamed of themselves for anointing her as their choice candidate by throwing their blind party voting machine behind her early in the primary; when they should have left it up to the campaigns and the voters of Massachusetts."
Yes, She was the party
Yes,
She was the party candidate and had the support of much of the state party, politicians and special interest groups. From that, politicians political machines started to swirl and the Dem faithful (Union and Special interest groups) got involved, and told their constituents who the vote would be for. It's a blind vote; "here vote this card."
Those machines are great for the general election with GOTV efforts and helping to get Dems elected, so it's not that they're all bad. But when it comes primary time, they distort the opinion of the majority of democrats, because how how blind a vote they tend to be. there's no thinking behind the vote besides patronage. It's even worse because it was a special election primary, where turnout was super low.
I really think, when it comes to primaries, the state party should stay away from favoring one candidate over the other. Let the damn process work. When they do ppick sides like they did in the primary, this is exactly what happens. We get a candidate that a good number of regular Joe (non machine) Dems are having trouble voting for.
You state why I decided to
You state why I decided to vote for Coakley, after not sure what I was going to do - hell, I was planning on doing a write-in as a sort of "no confidence" vote. I may have great distaste for her personally and not agree with things she has said/done, but the truth is that I need to set my own opinion of her aside for the greater good, i.e. passing healthcare, and not giving the Republicans a lift.
Scott Brown will be eyeing
Scott Brown will be eyeing the presidency the moment he gets elected. And his Republican puppet masters will be doing the same for him.
Both candidates suck, Martha sucks less. Plus her attack ads are 100% correct and did not cross the line. Martha has also had a real job. DA is a tough job but she actually had to work. It is fair to use her work record against her, as Scott and his supporters have done. But only one of the two people running has had a job record, from a direct job they will leave, to go on. I trust a person that has had to work over someone that has solely been a politician the last few years.
Coakley still a danger if she wins
Coakley's presidental prospects have probably been fatally injured by her hapless campaign.
But you can't rule her out in a country which elected the "new Nixon" and gives Sarah Palin a shot.
Aside from her fear mongering reaction over the Mooninites, there is another reason I couldn't ever vote for her - in order to nail down the conviction of Thomas Junta for manslaughter in the "Hockey Dad case," Coakley blocked the donation of the victim Michael Costin's heart:
http://www.theheart.org/article/277603.do
This is just a matter of presenting the expert testimony. Essentially, in order to ensure Junta's conviction, Coakley may have caused the death of an innocent third party.
As in other matters, Coakley showed she is a careerist zombie with no regards for the rights of others.
Vote for Joe Kennedy on Tuesday!
Coakley has no shot at the
Coakley has no shot at the presidency.
Mark my word. She's not a good enough politician, as we've all seen. She's even more bland the John Kerry.
I'm progressive and I'll tell you she's got just as much chance as Palin as president (without the help of McCain that is).
I realize this a "progressive" blog but I call BS on that one
"her attack ads are 100% correct and did not cross the line".
Reasonable people can differ reasonably on issues. I personally got a Coakley mailing using three separate UPS trademarks, (e.g. "what can Brown do TO you"). That is theft (as well as pretty juvenile)by the Chief law ENFORCEMENT officer of The commonwealth. Nice.
"But only one of the two people running has had a job record, from a direct job they will leave, to go on."
So you're saying Martha will quit as AG if she loses? Wow, how did the media miss that one? And BTW, I got a robocall last night from the Coakley campaign. The guy proudly stated that "Martha has never voted to raise your taxes, as Scott Brown has". Do you think maybe that's because as AG and DA, she never had the OPPORTUNITY to take a vote? Brown, OTOH, has been a state rep and senator with a record for all to see, like it or hate it. As I recall, when she ran for a post where you could actually vote on legislation, (state rep from Dorchester), Martha lost.(Now that I think about it, why the move to Medford?)
You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
The nation is watching us
For every liberal and moderate who is expressing your understandable dismay with Martha Coakley, get over it and do what you must to vote for the Democratic nominee.
This weekend I was in D.C. at a board meeting of a national liberal advocacy group that for decades has championed workers' rights, civil rights, freedom of choice, and other bellwether progressive causes. People from around the country were asking me how could this be in Massachusetts. It's clear that the nation is watching us, and among progressive folk, there is palpable alarm. They know that a Brown victory will galvanize the Tea Party crowd nationally.
I dearly wish that we had a better choice as the Dem nominee. But how sad it would be if Massachusetts is remembered as the state that drove a stake into all the hope of the 2008 election.
Or more bluntly, and with apologies for putting it so self-righteously, if your politics are to the left of the right and you opt to stay home or vote for anyone besides the Democratic nominee, I hope you will be willing to share responsibility for what unfolds in the aftermath of a Brown victory. And if you're wondering how that feels, ask a Nader supporter from 2000 if they might want to go back in time and change their vote.
I'd vote for the third party
I'd vote for the third party guy but . . . . Mass needs someone who can get our share of the federal goodies and Brown is a nobody who belongs to a party that hates this state. In fact, the big reason I will be voting for Coakley despite the fact that I do not like her- is simply because so many of the Brown supporters seem to hate this state so much. Why would I vote for a candidate whose supporters hate the Commonwealth and just about everything about it? Nothing but "People's republic" this and "Massholes" that . . . negative about everything Massachusetts and New England. I'm far from a liberal but I'll be damned if I'm gonna vote for a party filled with people who hate my town and my state.
it's true, isn't it?
Republicans hate government so much, when they get control, they run it into the ground; and when they campaign to get control they campaign about how much they hate the majority - the people who think we can make life better and are willing to do so. Thanks for posting your comment Chris. It's true and I don't think I've heard anyone else say it so clearly.
Thanks
Hating government is one thing. I'm no fan of the government- any government. But these Brown supporters go way past hating the government of this state- they hate THIS STATE itself. If you read their comments they are laced with hatred for the PEOPLE of Massachusetts and our rather tolerant yet reserved and dignified culture. It's one thing to hate politicians and government- it is another thing entirely when you descend into hatred of your own home town or your state itself. And that is what I see when I read Brown supporter comments. In fact- they parrot the anti Massachusetts crap one routinely hears from out of state moron "conservatives" all the time. And I can't abide that stuff. Either get a little patriotism for the Commonwealth and have some pride in our culture or get out. And yeah- I am saying "Love it or leave it". You would be hard pressed to find JUST ONE comment from a Brown supporter that has anything positive to say about this state on anything. And that is very telling in my mind.
I'll give you three:1. She
I'll give you three:
1. She is a Democrat
2. She is a Democrat
3. She is a Democrat
If the Democratic candidate were Daffy Duck I would still vote for him - this election will decide the fate of health care reform for millions of Americans. Coakley will support the reform, Brown will not. All other considerations about the candidates themselves, ranging from Coakley's campaign ineptitude, to Brown's daughter being on American Idol, are inconsequential.
And if anyone brings up Mooninites as an excuse to vote for her or against her, I will personally come to your house and strangle you for being such an idiot!
that's great. I don't care about their healthcare
I am sick of people having god-given rights on my dime. I am struggling to afford a home of my own after working my way through college. I walk by the projects this morning down the street from me and I see lexuses BMWs and Acuras in the parking lot. I don't have a car, I can't afford one. These are the people that will be getting healthcare on my dime. I'm not having it. Last I checked healthcare is not an unalienable right. Too many people get too much from the government teat without working for it. We can't afford this healthcare plan. If people can't afford their own healthcare, too bad.
What about yours?
Do you have healthcare? If you do, are you paying the full amount or is your employer paying for part of it? And are you paying lower premiums because you're part of a group plan?
Have you ever been denied healthcare because of a pre-existing condition? Ever had a serious illness and "used up" all your insurance so that you were no longer covered & couldn't afford treatment you needed?
Even if you don't care about other people, you might want to consider that you live in a state where you can get decent health insurance, and that laws do in fact protect you too.
well said
MA citizens have Romneycare. Individuals can buy insurance through an exchange and get the same rates groups get [size=9](High rates.)[/size] When are we going to address cost control? This plan was put in place in 2006.
Another problem that must be addressed with Romneycare is affordability. One in five residents with health insurance will forgoes necessary medical procedures becuase they cannot afford the high deductibles. (High deductibles is how insurance companies cost shift medical services to the insured. To be fair, it also causes the insured to make better choices about whether they need the care or not UNLESS they don't have the money to pay and then they forgo necessary care. 1 in 5. Ugh. Let's fix it. Maybe we need a better cost control mechanism than high deductibles.
Healthcare
We simply cannot afford this insane so-called health care bill that would take many rights away.
Good doctors will quit. I don't want to stand in line for some government group to decide about me.
I worked 46 1/2 years for the great health care I have; sure I pay some of it, and I pay my Medicare share.
But, I worked for what I have. Do you think my company will continue to pay what it owes me if the
government is going to 'take care' of me???? I think not. Lies and more lies from this corrupt
administration. I am sick of Obama flying all around. He likes to be away from his desk; beats working.
He has no business going to Massachusetts - he is supposed to be for ALL the people, and clearly, he
is not. I am 76, angry and fed up.
Ladyswiss, You seem to
Ladyswiss,
You seem to misunderstand the bill.
Your health care, if you're on Medicaid, will remain unchanged. The bill, as looked at the the CBO, will be deficient neutral. Heathcare is on track to double in price by 2020. Do you think wages are also set to double?
The bill isn't perfect, but neither is your understanding of it. It's a deficit neutral bill [That is almost exactly the type of bill the GOP supported only a few years ago], that will aim to reduce that doubling in price expansion. It doesn't restrict doctors, and in my opinion doesn't go far enough, but it does have cost saving measures to try to tackle the problem.
Then again, I don't think you opposition to it is because of whats in the bill.
So I guess the healthcare
So I guess the healthcare reform I was talking about only applies to welfare cheats in your mind? I'm all for going after welfare abuse, but what about people who work two part-time jobs, neither of which offers healthcare? Or what about someone who was recently laid off and their COBRA extension starts to run out? People can play by the rules and do everything right their whole lives, but one misfortune could prevent them from any kind of coverage under the current system. I also assume that you will send your Social Security and Medicare checks right back to the government when they end up in your mailbox? You better, or people will think you're a mooch. To tell the truth, I getting tired of putting into Social Security for people who misuse it by buying food and heat. I'll just stop.
I walk by the projects this
If that's true, you can bet it's not because of their legal job.
Don't worry, they'll get theirs. They always do. And then that car will become property of the state and used free of charge, or auctioned off.
Anyways, that's the welfare momma argument. The simple truth is there's lots more hard working people that use the services and work damn hard trying to lift themselves out of poverty and eventually do. But no one focuses on that. It doesn't sell papers or tv ad time. We also simply don't notice it as much.
Ask yourself this. Is it just a few cars, or is 50% of the lot full with $60,000 cars?
If "D" is the reason you're voting for "C"
then the Ds really fu#%ed up their primary, don't you think?
The D's really did F up the
The D's really did F up the primary, and I doubt any of them will argue that. Almost any of the others would have been a better choice.
So true. I'm really hoping
So true. I'm really hoping Capuano gets in in 2012. I genuinely think if he were the nominee, there would be much more of a base for him than the shaky ground Coakley's on. Alas...primaries.
ME TOO!
I hope he runs. But it'll be different because it will be a regular election cycle and he may need to give up his House seat to run for Senate (unlike the special election where he could run while still being a Congressman.) So you'll sign on to the movement!!?
Third
He was my vote in the primary. He's a hard worker and a great, savvy politician. (The kind of candidate we need to elect).
But, this ticket now is nothing more then the big picture in Washington. Still reason enough to vote C.
It Will Be Much Easier To Unseat Brown Than Coakley
If you folks honestly believe that you'll have a chance in hell of unseating Coakley in three years, via a primary challenge, then you had better be hoping for her to screw up big time during those three years. If she does her job in even a reasonable fashion, she'll win the nomination again, easily. Actually, she'll probably face no opposition.
On the other hand, Brown - if he does as many bad things as some folks believe he will - will be a sitting duck for a better Dem candidate than Coakley.
Just the opinion of a disinterested Libertarian observer. Your mileage may vary. And you'll be wrong :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Exactly, but then there'd be
Exactly, but then there'd be no reason to mount a challenge. She needs to legislate effectively, and to have some resemblance of Kennedy like constituent services.
But, if she legislates like she ran this campaign, there will be.
I’m anti-Martha because she seemed like she was politically clueless. The race so far has proven my point. Her actions, should she win, will determine 2012. The base isn’t going to get caught with its pants down again with a unsavory candidate if it can help it, and it’ll be a battle between the base and netroots, and the blindly voting party machine.
I agree 100%
Once she's in, she's in.
Reconciliation
The Dems can use reconciliation or Obama can issue an executive order to make changes to health care. This "Elect Martha the Horrible Candidate or the Whole Nation Loses Healthcare" paranoia is beyond phony. I'd personally love to see the Massachusetts Democratic Party get a wake-up call and the only way that will happen is if Brown is elected.
Nope, they won't and they
Nope, they won't and they can't.
Obama would never do such a thing, nor does he have the power. Even before he scaled back Bush liberal reading of what he could and couldn't do.
Reconciliation is off the floor because of how exactly it works.
You don't seem to understand how each option works. It's not do reconciliation and be done with it.
More like the DA of Dallas County
For all of the defense of our liberal, just and tolerant values, doesn't anyone see how Coakley with her attack on the Mooninites, heart-rotting prosecution of the "Hockey Dad," and her war against Tooky, is more like the Dallas DA (see The Thin Blue Line) than a Massachusetts AG.
Robert Treat Paine is spinning in his grave.
Why vote for Coakley
Bunch a reasons.
Caring for the Children
1. Tough on child molesters. She put the Amiraults away. Apologists wanted them to go free, but she has done everything to stop them but the apologists and pro-child molesters have been winning that one.
Caring for the Public Trust
2. Tough on the fraud at the Big Dig. She has recovered all of the overspending, overtime, and other unneccesary expenditures in the boondoggle known as the big dig. She has gotten money put aside to deal with all of the leaks and falling ceilings that have, or may in the future kill drivers and passengers. And lastly she has prosecuted the contractors operatives for their criminal parts in the frauds on the Commonwealth, and the Federal Gov. around the "Big Dig". Somebody is going to jail eventually, aren't they?
Protecting citizens from theft by conspiracy of Fraud.
3. She is holding the Wall Street Bankers who got rich off of the criminal plundering of Mass. workers's retirement funds -- Accountable--- she is not only recovering all of those stolen funds and restoring the value to everyone's 401k's---- those criminals are being prosecuted and will soon go to jail.
These things and more are what the tough Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley is all about. This is why I am voting for her. How could anyone NOT?
"She put the Amiraults away"
Actually, Coakley didn't prosecute the Amiraults, Scott Harshbarger did.
And when Cheryl Amirault LeFave was released from prison on appeal (she had won a new trial) Martha did not retry her but instead released her on parole. Cheryl's Mother Violet was also released on parole and died of cancer shortly after. Among Violet's final words were "Don't vote for Scott Harshbarger."
Oddly, given that Martha did not retry Cheryl, she did oppose Gerald's sentence commutation, even after a unanimous 5-0 Massachusetts parole board recommendation to commute Gerald's sentence to time served (after 15 years incarceration.)
Martha did not do this in court. Instead, she rallied the victims and made a show of it in front of Gov Swifts. If you wonder why she did not rally the same victims as witnesses to retry Cheryl, you must know that she considers men ringleaders and women followers in pedophile crimes. And if there is no specific evidence in the case file substantiating Martha's theory of that crime, then what you have is gender profiling and unequal treatment under law, a Constitutionally protected right violated by the DA of Middlesex, Martha Coakley.
By the way, in October Martha was asked if she would do anything differently. She said no.