What began as small pockets of individuals meeting in groups and venting their frustrations over high taxes and Congressional Representatives that either failed to listen, or disparaged those who dared to question the wisdom of deficit spending of historical proportions has morphed into a viable political force – the Tea Party. The Tea Party has fielded and supported candidates for both the House and the Senate across the country, and those candidates are not recessing for the summer. One will hear about a group of “angry white men”, yet when looking at the Tea Party on a local basis, one finds that the opposite is true – not only are tea party groups inclusive of all ethnicity's and races, they are also inclusive on all political affiliations - the most prominent being those “unenrolled” or “independents” who previously felt neither major political party had what the individual was seeking.
What is it that Tea Party members are seeking in a candidate? The seek a candidate who offers strict adherence to the Constitution, someone who has worked for a living and understands the needs of the average American, someone who is fiscally responsible and believes in a balanced budget and, most importantly, tax cuts. Those members are specifically interested in someone who has not set foot in Washington DC. Yet, they are not exclusive to members of their own Party, they will support candidates who echo their core principals, which most often are registered Republicans.
The wisdom that has, for generations, pervaded the political class, is that of “experience”. For example, ads will run in Congressional races touting the 3, 4, or 10 terms a Congressional Representative and/or Senator has served; noting that they hold the keys to more benefits for their respective states due to their appointments to high profile committees. Candidates that ran against incumbents in the past, faced grilling from Editorial Boards and journalists, (and still do), about their “lack of experience”. Today, however, that lack of experience is particularly appealing to a growing block of voters, many of which have never attended a Tea Party meet-up and/or know all that much about the party.
The new wisdom is, simply put, if someone cannot get a house in order in a specific amount of time, or has consistently voted against the wishes of their constituents, or has voted for spending measures, then they are no longer considered a viable candidate and therefore, should be replaced, preferably by someone who has never served in the Congress. A true citizen legislature is what is sought by a growing body of voters – Tea Party or Democrat, or Green Party or Libertarian or Republican.
The dissatisfaction with the current two-party system did not begin, as one would be led to believe, as a response to the election of Barak Obama, and his policies which mirror those of former President Jimmy Carter, it began when the individual noticed they had no choice at the ballot box in each and every election – by that – most incumbents ran unopposed, and or opposition candidates were so few and far between with little funding, no media attention and a lack of cohesive support. Massachusetts, for example, has for years been considered the “Bluest State” simply because Democrats dominated all aspects of politics in the state, from the local and state level to the few Federal seats available - the logic followed, that no Republican could get elected in the State. Massachusetts was not an anomaly, other states followed suit, and the entire Northeast looked to be a sea of Blue with each election cycle.
This change began to evidence itself in 2006 and 2008, when additional candidates began to appear on the ballots, where none had appeared before – from California’s 8th District to the 4th District of Massachusetts – these individuals ran against deeply entrenched politicians and were immediately dismissed by both the media and the electorate – however, the later did not dismiss them entirely, with the candidate receiving at the least a percentage of the votes – giving those who were tired of seeing the same name on the ballot an option, which gave them hope for the future.
In Massachusetts, in 2008 and 2009, individuals began to look at public service, doctors, landscapers, and those who served in the military. In January of 2010, one Scott Brown became the first Republican elected to the Senate from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and it shocked the political establishment – who immediately dismissed his election as a “fluke” – blaming Martha Coakley, the Democrat who ran as opposition, for running a shoddy campaign. “They” didn’t get it. Had the media done its research they would have found established anti-incumbent candidates who had formed committees and were ready to run for Congress, the State Senate and the State Legislature.
The Tea Party, a response to the high taxes imposed on U.S. Citizens, began to throw support to these candidates, and has also begun to field candidates of its own.
Words of wisdom from an 86 year old unenrolled voter from the Bay State, who is not affiliated with the Tea Party – but understands the basics of economics gone astray – those currently in office do not deserve to be reelected, ordinary people can do a better job. The intent: to vote for anyone who is not an incumbent. That one older individual is not alone, younger voters, Hispanic voters, the individuals who have had enough, are looking forward to November and the opportunity to vote for the anti-incumbent. Democrats in Massachusetts specifically, are looking to voting for Republican’s for the first time since January 19th, 2010. One coined it, a Revolution, a Silent Revolution at the Ballot Box.
Therefore, when candidates who are either endorsed by or directly fielded by a Tea Party, hold a rally, they draw a crowd. One such that bears mentioning is one Allen West Allen West for Congress West, a candidate for the Florida 22nd, is one of the anti-incumbents to watch. According to the FEC West has to date, raised $2,065,855, while Ron Klein, the incumbent Democrat, has managed to raise $1,860,453 . The fact that West, in a District that leans Democrat, is doing so well with individual contributions at this stage of the game, speaks volumes. A 4th of July You Tube video of West is shown below. It is evident, by his speech, how the population in general views the 2010 election.
In fact, as the days progress, deeply entrenched politicians who were previously considered “untouchable” are now facing opposition – a newly released AP Article speaks to the problems faced by Russ Feingold this election cycle. This would not have been part of the political conversation two years ago.
As the Tea Party grows, and more importantly, the sentiment of the voters aligns with Tea Party principals, going into November on can envision a new Congress forming, one which will hold a few incumbents, and those who were voted in as anti-incumbents which will be in Washington to hold everyone accountable to this and future generations.
Adam West, Florida 22nd District Candidate, Speaking Before a Ft. Lauderdale Tea Party
Showing posts with label Democats Support Scott Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democats Support Scott Brown. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Friday, June 04, 2010
Richard Neal (D-MA Hampden 2nd) Holds Pricey Fundraiser out of His District – Neal is up for Reelection in 2010.
Representative Richard Neal - campaigning hard to win the Rangel Gavel must first win the trust of the Hampden 2nd
The Hampden Second District is not often in the news, it is one of the more quiet districts in the Commonwealth, and Democrat Richard Neal, its 11 term Congressional Representative, tends to keep a lower profile. Neal only appears, like clockwork, every two years, when the residents are sent mailers touting the dangers of Republicans and Neal’s accomplishments. The local press begins to run a plethora of stories on Neal, who, up until this time in his career, has not faced a serious challenge. Times have changed, and Neal has stiff competition from Dr. Jay Fleitman of Northampton, Flietman, who as a Republican, has been active in Northampton politics, made his campaign official when he delivered or 3800 certified signatures weeks ahead of the State Deadline. It is the fact that Flietman is not only a Republican who is well-received in one of the most liberal cities in the District, but that he also has a sensible approach to the issues facing the district as well as the nation.
The Globe's report on Neal’s Lobbyist packed fundraiser was based on his quest to take the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, recently made vacant by Charles Rangel. Neal needs the money to donate to Democrat Candidates as well as the Democrat Congressional Committee in order to garner favor with individual reps, so that when the time comes, he’ll have bought enough votes to sustain any serious challengers to the chair.
Neal faces two obstacles to the high seat on the Committee that governs our taxes: one the Democrats must maintain a majority in order for Neal to stand a chance of succeeding, and two, he must still be a Congressional Representative in November. Both of these obstacles are looking insurmountable, with anti-Washington, anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat sentiment running high nationwide, and in no place is this evident more than the Hampden 2nd district of Massachusetts.
In reviewing the special January 19th, 2010 Senate election Map shown below, the Hampden second (noted by the City of Springfield in blue) shows a sea of red, as the District leaned heavily towards Brown. Three areas where Coakley fared well were Springfield, Amherst and Holyoke - the rest - not so much.
Results from January 2010 Special election - Hampden Second runs from the hill towns west (in red) to Worcester
Can a physician from Northampton do to Neal what Brown did to Coakley? – The answer to that question is a resounding yes. With the exception of an increase in articles in the local news (which is anticipated by voters with Neal’s history of showing up every two years), he has about as much name recognition, perhaps less than Dr. Jay. The Boston Globe article talks about Neal as being bi-partisan, however, his voting record in the Congress appears to contradict that claim, as from day 1, he has voted specifically along party lines. Neal is going to have to campaign hard, and it means spending on advertising, announcing the fact that he exists on the one hand, and that he wants to be reelected on the other.
Dr. Jay Fleitman, Republican running against Richard Neal, on a trip to the Capital
It will come down to a matter of who the voters are going to trust to end the spending, the corruption and reign in the deficit. The old allegiance to one party in Massachusetts is gone. The electorate is heavily Independent, and enthusiasm among Democrats is at an all-time low. There are at least 5, perhaps 6, very competitive house races out of the 10 seats currently held by Democrats in Massachusetts.
To learn more about the candidates:
Jay Fleitman for Congress
Neal for Congress
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Today, Massachusetts Finally has a Choice – Brown vs. Coakley – U.S. Senate Race
For what seems like decades the voters of Massachusetts have had few choices if any when it came to most state elections, however, today the choice is there, in the form of one State Senator, Scott Brown. It is not so much that names have not been on the ballot, not that other candidates in the past were not worthy to hold a seat in the State Legislature, the Governor’s office, the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Senate, it has been a battle of name recognition and the quality candidate combined that turned the Commonwealth that gave history a Republic in the new world, into a state the pundits consistently called “Safe Democrat”. It has been so lopsided as far as one political party is concerned, that most often another name is not even on the ballot. In the past, when going to the polls, one found oneself focused on the ballot initiatives more than the actual candidates.
Today, voters go to the polls in Massachustts with a clear choice to fill a vacant U.S. Senate Seat – on one side they have Scott Brown, a Republican from Wrentham, MA who has been a State Senator for three terms. Brown is part of a small group of Republican’s that sit with a majority of Democrats on Beacon Hill. In 2006, this blog found Scott Browns website for constituent services and became interested in the Republican from Wrentham. His monthly newsletters to constituents here are filled with tips for constituents, and updates about what is happening in their government. In subscribing over a period of years, one found that Brown takes care of his constituents, listens to their needs, and offers suggestions. In addition, he does not always vote party line, but weighs the value of each piece of legislation regardless of the source before making a decision. This is the type of legislator that every district in Massachusetts would welcome. Brown, a conservative, is also a moderate, not too far to the right, nor too far to the left, but pragmatic when looking at a given issue. In other words, someone with some common sense and intelligence with a love of country that is apparent by his thirty years of service in the National Guard.
Martha Coakley, a former district attorney from Middlesex County and in her first term as Attorney General for the Commonwealth, is a different story. It is not so much that Martha Coakley is not a good Attorney General, or that she hasn’t done her best for her constituents in that particular position, however, her qualifications hardly suit her for the State Senate, let alone the U.S. Senate. It is not her decision making process, it is her extreme devotion to party over the people of the Commonwealth that makes Coakley the least desirable candidate in this particular race.
This Senate race has garnered a great deal of national attention, but it is, and remains, the race of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In all the endorsements, visits from party dignitaries and a great deal of advertising, robo-calls and the like, the only deciding factor is the actual candidate and that candidates qualifications to best represent Massachusetts, not for a party, not for a President’s agenda, but for the people. In the past several years, Brown has made that his priority, and in this campaign, his sincerity in his promise to continue to do so, is what makes him the most qualified to be the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.
Throughout this campaign, in speaking to those who would vote in Massachusetts, one simple instruction was given, investigate both candidates and then make a decision. A candidate, regardless of party, should be “given” a seat, or “entitled” to a seat, because of party, but because of a proven record. The last week or two saw advertising that was so chock full of fabrication (politely put) regarding Senator Brown’s record (which is available online), that it smacked of desperation, and arrogance. Arrogance that the good people of the Commonwealth lacked common sense and would do as they were told: vote for the President’s Agenda. The ads barely mentioned Martha Coakley as candidate.
One cannot predict the outcome of today’s election, although polls are giving Brown the edge, and Scott Brown clearly has the momentum, rest assured nothing has been taken for granted. Last night felt like Christmas Eve all over again, and that’s a rare feeling for moderate conservative thinkers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As we head to the polls in approximately an hour, the choice is there, and as the country watches, rest assured, the people were given a choice, they reacted to the choice, and, after the dust settles, and a decision has been made by the people. Side note: spotters from both parties (including unenrolled) will be in place at each polling station throuout the Commonwealth). Finally, regardless of the newspaper endorsements, regardless of the pundits from both inside and outside the Commonwealth and regardless of the perception that Massachusetts belongs to one political party – the Commonwealth belongs to its citizens.
Polls open at 7 am and close at 8 pm.
The next races to watch U.S. Congressional: The Hampden 2nd and the Massachusetts 4th District.
Today, voters go to the polls in Massachustts with a clear choice to fill a vacant U.S. Senate Seat – on one side they have Scott Brown, a Republican from Wrentham, MA who has been a State Senator for three terms. Brown is part of a small group of Republican’s that sit with a majority of Democrats on Beacon Hill. In 2006, this blog found Scott Browns website for constituent services and became interested in the Republican from Wrentham. His monthly newsletters to constituents here are filled with tips for constituents, and updates about what is happening in their government. In subscribing over a period of years, one found that Brown takes care of his constituents, listens to their needs, and offers suggestions. In addition, he does not always vote party line, but weighs the value of each piece of legislation regardless of the source before making a decision. This is the type of legislator that every district in Massachusetts would welcome. Brown, a conservative, is also a moderate, not too far to the right, nor too far to the left, but pragmatic when looking at a given issue. In other words, someone with some common sense and intelligence with a love of country that is apparent by his thirty years of service in the National Guard.
Martha Coakley, a former district attorney from Middlesex County and in her first term as Attorney General for the Commonwealth, is a different story. It is not so much that Martha Coakley is not a good Attorney General, or that she hasn’t done her best for her constituents in that particular position, however, her qualifications hardly suit her for the State Senate, let alone the U.S. Senate. It is not her decision making process, it is her extreme devotion to party over the people of the Commonwealth that makes Coakley the least desirable candidate in this particular race.
This Senate race has garnered a great deal of national attention, but it is, and remains, the race of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In all the endorsements, visits from party dignitaries and a great deal of advertising, robo-calls and the like, the only deciding factor is the actual candidate and that candidates qualifications to best represent Massachusetts, not for a party, not for a President’s agenda, but for the people. In the past several years, Brown has made that his priority, and in this campaign, his sincerity in his promise to continue to do so, is what makes him the most qualified to be the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.
Throughout this campaign, in speaking to those who would vote in Massachusetts, one simple instruction was given, investigate both candidates and then make a decision. A candidate, regardless of party, should be “given” a seat, or “entitled” to a seat, because of party, but because of a proven record. The last week or two saw advertising that was so chock full of fabrication (politely put) regarding Senator Brown’s record (which is available online), that it smacked of desperation, and arrogance. Arrogance that the good people of the Commonwealth lacked common sense and would do as they were told: vote for the President’s Agenda. The ads barely mentioned Martha Coakley as candidate.
One cannot predict the outcome of today’s election, although polls are giving Brown the edge, and Scott Brown clearly has the momentum, rest assured nothing has been taken for granted. Last night felt like Christmas Eve all over again, and that’s a rare feeling for moderate conservative thinkers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As we head to the polls in approximately an hour, the choice is there, and as the country watches, rest assured, the people were given a choice, they reacted to the choice, and, after the dust settles, and a decision has been made by the people. Side note: spotters from both parties (including unenrolled) will be in place at each polling station throuout the Commonwealth). Finally, regardless of the newspaper endorsements, regardless of the pundits from both inside and outside the Commonwealth and regardless of the perception that Massachusetts belongs to one political party – the Commonwealth belongs to its citizens.
Polls open at 7 am and close at 8 pm.
The next races to watch U.S. Congressional: The Hampden 2nd and the Massachusetts 4th District.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Mass Senate Election Update – Scott Brown has 5 point lead over Coakley – Suffolk University/Boston Globe Poll
Image AD showing Brown and Coakely's Now Infamous Watching as Aid knocks down Reporter - image Hillbuzz.org, h/t Rocky
A newly released poll from Suffolk University shows Republican Scott Brown with a 5 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The poll was released on January 14th. The poll marginals available here show some interesting statistics:
What the Suffolk Poll tells us, coming only 5 days before the special election is that a poll, skewed towards Democrats, shows Brown surging. Suggest reading the marginals and questions to get an idea of exactly how the poll was conducted and why it might lean Democrat.
This poll was taken after a barrage of negative ads by Coakley, Coakley leaning PAC’s and the Democrat Senatorial Committee began to run. Public Policy Polling suggested they may take another poll this weekend – watch to see how those stats compare with Suffolk’s. One can hazard to guess that the 5 point lead, may stay the same, or increase, as the weekend is sure to bring the negative advertising that sank Kerry Healy’s campaign. Joe Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate was factored into the last few polls and appears to be coming in at 3% of the vote that may or may not go higher as those independents break for Brown.
The last Republican elected to the Senate in Massachusetts, and also the first African American, elected was Edward Brook. The state of Massachusetts voted twice for Ronald Reagan: the first time against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Although considered a minority party in Commonwealth, the Governor’s office is most often held by a Republican – the last to hold the office was Mitt Romney.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Brown Coakley U.S. Senate Debate - Brown Clips Coakley in Final Debate
The final debate for the U.S. Senate was held this evening at UMass Boston. (The full debate is available hereat C-SPAN). A portion of the debate from NECN is shown below. David Gergan moderated, the debate style was not as engaging as the last debate held on WGBY Springfield, which was a bit more "free-wheeling". Brown stood fast to his independent stance, showcasing his knowledge of foreign policy, while Coakley harped about "Bush-Cheney". Best line of the debate: The opening when Gergan asked Brown an opening questions regarding "Ted Kennedy's seat" - Brown's reply was quick and to the point - (abridged) - This is not Ted Kennedy's seat, this seat belongs to the people of the State of Massachusetts.
Independent Candidate Joe Kennedy held his own, although Gergan mentioned 20 times that he was not related to "The Kennedy's", and gave him little to no opportunity to answer questions. On substance Brown won the debate handily. Both Brown, Coakley appeared tired.
The end result is not only one of ideology but of legislative experience: Coakley, elected in 2006, has served as the Commonwealth's Attorney General while Brown is on his 3rd term in the State Senate, having served previously as a State Representative. Brown is decidedly a moderate conservative, who will cross the aisle, while Coakley is a pronounced Progressive Democrat. Brown came off as the guy next door - Mr. Smith goes to Washington if you will. Coakely came off as a somewhat arrogant and at times, uninformed or intentionally misleading.
New England Cable News Debate Coverage
Independent Candidate Joe Kennedy held his own, although Gergan mentioned 20 times that he was not related to "The Kennedy's", and gave him little to no opportunity to answer questions. On substance Brown won the debate handily. Both Brown, Coakley appeared tired.
The end result is not only one of ideology but of legislative experience: Coakley, elected in 2006, has served as the Commonwealth's Attorney General while Brown is on his 3rd term in the State Senate, having served previously as a State Representative. Brown is decidedly a moderate conservative, who will cross the aisle, while Coakley is a pronounced Progressive Democrat. Brown came off as the guy next door - Mr. Smith goes to Washington if you will. Coakely came off as a somewhat arrogant and at times, uninformed or intentionally misleading.
New England Cable News Debate Coverage
MA Senate Race-Boston Globe Poll – Coakley+ 15 with Poll Marginal’s Showing Sample of Majority Democrats – How Much Trouble is Coakley Really In?
University of New Hampshire Marginals MA Senate Special Election Weighed Heavily Democrat
A Boston Globe Poll released over the weekend, touts a 15 point lead for Democrat Martha Coakley over Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Special Election for U.S. Senate. The poll was released immediately following the release of polls by Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling , both showing the race within a 9 to 1 point margin (Rasmussen: Coakley plus 9 with 4.5 margin of error, Public Policy Polling: Brown plus 1, with a 3.6 margin of error). Both Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling’s marginal’s were close to the actual makeup of the Massachusetts electorate: Democrats 35%, Republicans’ 11% and Unenrolled 50 plus percent.
In viewing the marginal’s used by the University of New Hampshire – Boston Globe Poll, here one finds that the sample of likely voters (see poll photo above), was comprised of: 307 Democrats, 86 Independents (Unenrolled) and 151 Republicans. This in no wise accurately represents the electoral make-up of the state. Therefore, with the fact that the poll grossly over-represents the Democrat party, how much trouble is Coakley really in when a 15 point lead is all they come up with?
Note: In addition, the likelihood of additional polling by reputable national polling companies (see Public Policy Polling), is extremely probable within the next week. Public Policy Polling correctly called the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Races, yet missed on the New York Special Election. In the case of the later, Public Policy Polling Data was released and completed prior to the Republican dropping out of the race and endorsing the Democrat. The type of poll released by the Boston Globe does two things: gives more incentive to Brown Supporters and sends a message to those who would vote Coakley – leaving the impression that the Globe in taking Brown’s side in this race.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
MA Senate Update – Poll – 1-9-2010 - Republican Scott Brown Leads Coakley 48 to 47
The latest poll is now showing that Republican Scott Brown is leading Democrat, Martha Coakley in the race to fill the vacant Senate Seat in the January 19th, MA Special Election.
The pollster, Pubic Policy Polling just released the data this evening:
From their blog:
One gets the feeling, here in Massachusetts, that Brown is crossing party lines, pulling not only the Republican and Independent voters, but Democrats in growing numbers. Brown held a Town Hall today by phone for residents of the Bay State – this bloggers phone has been ringing off the hook ever since. It will continue to be an uphill battle, one should take nothing for granted, here, in MA – but the fact that the Secretary of State refuses to certify the election for 10 days to wait for absentee ballots, makes one believe that the Democrats are taking no chances. In addition, that move seems to have solidified the vote behind Brown. There is a “take no prisoners” attitude by the electorate one has not seen since November 1979. If Massachusetts is to make history, the citizens of the Bay State cannot lay idle based on polls, and it appears that, for the first time in decades, they are more than aware of what is at stake.
Poll Resultshere
The pollster, Pubic Policy Polling just released the data this evening:
From their blog:
Here's the reality: the Republicans and GOP leaning independents are going to come out and vote for Scott Brown. There's no doubt about that. But there's also a much larger pool of potential Democratic voters in the state. If Coakley can get them out, she wins. But this race is well past the stage where Democrats can take it for granted that will happen. It will be fascinating to see what happens the final ten days and we'll do a second poll on the race next weekend.
One gets the feeling, here in Massachusetts, that Brown is crossing party lines, pulling not only the Republican and Independent voters, but Democrats in growing numbers. Brown held a Town Hall today by phone for residents of the Bay State – this bloggers phone has been ringing off the hook ever since. It will continue to be an uphill battle, one should take nothing for granted, here, in MA – but the fact that the Secretary of State refuses to certify the election for 10 days to wait for absentee ballots, makes one believe that the Democrats are taking no chances. In addition, that move seems to have solidified the vote behind Brown. There is a “take no prisoners” attitude by the electorate one has not seen since November 1979. If Massachusetts is to make history, the citizens of the Bay State cannot lay idle based on polls, and it appears that, for the first time in decades, they are more than aware of what is at stake.
Poll Resultshere
Monday, January 04, 2010
Mass. Senate Race Update: Scott Brown Endorsed by John McCain, Martha Coakley Endorsed by NARAL (Pro-Abortion) Brown’s stock Rising
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)
