MA Special Senate Election - Martha Coakley (D), Asks That Libertarian Party Candidate Be Included In Any Debates – Will This Help or Hurt Coakley?

The primary had barely ended, when calls for debates between the two front-runners, Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown began. One of the debate invitations includes a simulcast on CNN, which would allow all Bay State Residents the option of watching the debate. Brown immediately accepted, while Coakley sat back a day or two before offering a compromise. Coakley has askedthat the Libertarian Candidate, Joe Kennedy be included in any debates.

On the face of it, Coakley request appears to be one of inclusion and fairness, that said, that said, analysts from the Boston Globe suggest that the inclusion of Kennedy would make it easier for Coakley in the long-run – the argument, Brown would have a difficult time standing out in a three way primary where the Libertarian Candidate may peel votes away from Brown.

The Boston Herald wasted no time in pointing out that Coakley had declined to debate a GOP opponent when she ran for Attorney General in 2006. During the primary debates, Coakley was chastised by her opponent, Rep. Capuano, for skipping a debate, and during one debate she did attend, a remark she made regarding foreign policy drew national comparisons to Sarah Palin. Palin who said (paraphrasing) that in certain places in Alaska one can actually see Russia (which is true) was parodied on Saturday Night Live as having said “I can see Russia from My House”. Coakley, when asked about her foreign policy experience, drew on the fact that she had a sister who lives overseas – thus the comparison and the handwriting on the wall.

Martha Coakley may not want to debate in equal time, due to the fact that what she may say might end up on the front page of the Globe or Herald in negative terms. One will then, most likely get a full treatment of how she wore her hair, with a full critique of her dress.

The candidates, in real terms, offer the voters some difference, but that’s where it ends. Brown, the Republican, is a moderate, who has worked tirelessly for women and children’s rights during his Mass. Senate Tenure. He is known to work across the aisle to accomplish something that would benefit his constituent. He has the experience in the Senate. Coakley, as Attorney General, has her back-ground as the State’s leading crime fighter, which also comes with some baggage, as she can be considered a Beacon Hill “insider”. Enter the Libertarian: Joe Kennedy, whose name recognition alone, regardless of the fact that newspapers are quick to point out there is “no relation between Kennedy and “The Kennedy’s”, those that do not subscribe or read the Globe and/or Herald, may think otherwise. In addition, looking at policy, as a Libertarian, he believes in free markets, personal freedoms, and to change foreign policy decisions that have “hurt our reputation” (shades of Bush), he supports same sex marriage, and he is for wholesale marijuana (state by state) use, to include personal use and the ability to farm. He is for a woman’s right to choose, in other words he supports abortion, and, although not in support of the current Health Care Plan before the Senate – Kennedy appears to be somewhat of a liberal as to personal freedoms (as are most Libertarians) and closer to Coakley in political think than to Brown.

Brown is is for tax cuts, enforcement of immigrations laws, support of Veterans, in support of Gun Owners rights, sees Marriage as between a man and a woman, and leaves it to the States to decide, and finally on abortion, he is taking that same tactic, although he would like to see abortions reduced, is against Partial Birth Abortion, and for parental notification.

Coakley's Issues - begin with her promise to work tirelessly for the Presidents Health Care initiative. She goes on to equate equal rights with the right to an abortion (a different take) and is against the war in Afghanistan, yet supports the President in all decisions.

In retrospect, there are fewer differences between Coakley and Kennedy than Brown, and any disenfranchised Democrats, who may not want to pull the lever for a Republican, will certainly have no qualms about voting for a Libertarian, especially one who has a branded political name. Brown as a moderate will appeal to those independents that have sent Republicans to the Governor’s office on more than one occasion. In calling for a three-way debate, Coakley's intent may have been, as noted in the Globe, to drive voters away from Brown to Kennedy, thereby giving her the advantage. However, when one breaks down the issues, adds in name recognition that is almost like a drug to Massachusetts Democrats, then Martha may be doing herself a disservice.

The election itself and the outcome on the 19th will come down to three factors, regardless of the debate, should the National GOP mount a defensive in Massachusetts – (there have been several indications this is the case) Brown will have an advantage, and the team with the strongest grassroots organization (again Brown) will stand in better stead, specifically if the weather is inclement. Finally, should the voters in the Commonwealth, specifically those Democrats who are going to the polls, get beyond their distaste of electing women to offices higher than Attorney General, while having the option to vote for a Kennedy, Coakley may end up going the way of Shannon O’Brien (lost to Romney). The next four weeks should be of interest, watch for increased advertising from Brown and Coakley, the debates (should they occur given Coakley record of avoidance), and the usual polls from Suffolk University.