The special election in Massachusetts on the 19th of January to fill the seat left vacant by Ted Kennedy’s demise, has seen something unusual take place in the Bay State – the rise of Republican Scott Brown to within, as some are quick to point out, striking distance of the Democrats.
Brown, a State Senator from Wrentham has the experience, as well as record as a moderate in the MA Senate. His primary objectives, over the years he has spent in the legislature (while also serving in the National Guard), have been the protection of women and children. In addition he has kept his constituents informed about what is taking place on Beacon Hill through a series of monthly newsletters. (said newsletters are still being published while he is on the campaign trail – copies can be found here at www.scottbrown.com. He is a fiscal conservative, and dead set against adding another nickel to the growing deficit, yet will cross the aisle when it helps his constituents. Brown, in other words, is the real deal, offering his constituents the transparency that has so often been touted but so often non-existent.
Martha Coakley, the State’s Attorney General, hailed from the western part of the Bay State, the Berkshires, and her performance as the State’s DA has been questioned, especially by an article in Boston Magazine where she had co-mingled funds from two different campaigns – this gives a preview of an individual who may be willing to bed the law a bit in order to get from point A to point B. The article, by Paul Kix, is entitled “ Running Scared : Martha Coakley
Martha Coakley has many wonderful qualities. So why doesn't her Senate campaign
feature any of them?” is worth the read, as it highlights some key points in Ms. Coakley’s career that are at odds with her campaign rhetoric.
One must realize that no matter which candidate, and for what position in government, it is impossible for any candidate to be perfect. Therefore, one must choose the candidate who they feel will best represent their political ideology, regardless of party. This is in evidence at Brown campaign offices across the state where volunteers are proud to call themselves Democrats, Libertarian, Green, Unenrolled or Independent, and, yes, even Republican. The reasoning: Health Care and a general distrust of Politics as usual. (In the interest of full disclosure this blog has not visited one of Martha Coakley’ four offices.)
As the clock winds down, endorsements can be expected, and those endorsements are decidedly (for the most part) partisan. From the Brown Campaign, an endorsement came via Senator John McCain who stressed Scotts military service as well as his fiscal record in the State Senate.
On the flip side, Martha Coakley, has been endorsed by Emily’s List as well as N.A.R.A.L., for her pro-active support of abortion, beginning prior to her political career – she is not in favor of parental consent, she was adamant that private medical facilities tow the public line regardless of religious or moral issues, when it came to dispensing birth control and abortion in Massachusetts, etc. The article from the Boston Globe outliens the differences between Brown and Coakley, as regards “reproductive rights” (i.e. Abortion).
Martha has also picked up the endorsements of several local politicians, right in Scott Browns District, those include selectmen and school committee members. Those members are easily identified as Democrats, therefore, Martha can be seen to be picking up the endorsement of local Democrats, in the final hours of the campaign, while Brown is picking up the endorsement of one of the most moderate Republican’s who has a national platform.
It really comes down to political ideology and which candidate one feels would best serve the interest of the people, rather than the interests of a given political party. That has been evidenced through the debates, given Browns records as an independent thinker, (to paraphrase his words in the WBZ debate), while Coakley is ready to go to Washington to support the President and his agenda.
Just a note: in the Boston Globe article there is a reference regarding some of Coakely’s advisers telling her to tone down the pro-abortion language (soften) it a bit. This is most likely in response to Shannon O’Brian’s strong abortion language which cost her the Governor’s office (that went to Mitt Romney). In all, Massachusetts can be seen as a liberal state, up to a point, and a social issue, such as unlimited abortion access at any age, any procedure, can put off voters in a hurry – specifically those 51% and counting of those who consider themselves unenrolled. Should Coakley attempt to soften her stance in the coming two weeks, it would go directly to character, or lack thereof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment