Want ANOTHER reason to NOT vote for Martha Coakley???
Posted By Curt Schilling On January 14, 2010 @ 11:02 am In Family, General, Life | 1 Comment
Picked this up from here… [1]
If she hasn’t done it yet, Martha Coakley may have just killed her campaign.
She’s apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park. [2]
The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.
… Despite that, there is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.
Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’
There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
It shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election†and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,†is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. — if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.
Finally, has she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.
When unions endorse a Republican over a Democrat in any race these days, it’s news. When two police unions in Massachusetts endorse Scott Brown over Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s highest ranking law-enforcement officer, it should be a big signal to voters...
...
This is Worcester, and some may wonder whether this is a bastion of conservative thought. It wasn’t for Coakley in her last election. In 2006, while winning her race for the AG spot handily over her GOP opponent, Coakley got over 30,000 votes in Worcester, while Larry Frisoli got less than 10,000 — about the same percentage as the vote went across the state. The MA-03 Congressional district, in which Worcester sits, is so safe for Democrats that Rep. Jim McGovern ran unopposed in the last two elections. It’s a very safe Democratic area … until now.
But the worst part of all is that law-enforcement unions have rejected Coakley. One would expect police officers to trust an AG — if the the AG in question performed well. While the unions are smart enough not to criticize Coakley in public (after all, they’ll be stuck with her if she loses the election), their endorsement of Brown is an obvious slap in the face to the person who sits atop the law-enforcement chain of command in the state. They’re calling Brown a “tireless advocate of public safety,†which is supposed to be Coakley’s current job. In effect, they’re giving her a very public “good, solid B-plus†for her efforts, in the most ironic sense possible.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’
Bostonians don't like digs at their team.
We get rather ugly with that -- total homers that we are. :-)How much pull does Curt Schilling have?
How much pull does Curt Schilling have?
Bostonians don't like digs at their team.
I'll believe it when I see it. Everyone thought the tide had turned with Hoffman too but looked what happened.
Until Brown is sworn in and casts that vote against ObamaCare, I'm not going to get excited. At all.
Quote
When unions endorse a Republican over a Democrat in any race these days, it’s news. When two police unions in Massachusetts endorse Scott Brown over Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s highest ranking law-enforcement officer, it should be a big signal to voters...
...
This is Worcester, and some may wonder whether this is a bastion of conservative thought. It wasn’t for Coakley in her last election. In 2006, while winning her race for the AG spot handily over her GOP opponent, Coakley got over 30,000 votes in Worcester, while Larry Frisoli got less than 10,000 — about the same percentage as the vote went across the state. The MA-03 Congressional district, in which Worcester sits, is so safe for Democrats that Rep. Jim McGovern ran unopposed in the last two elections. It’s a very safe Democratic area … until now.
I wrote a column last week in which I dismissed the chances of Republican Scott Brown actually winning next Tuesday’s Senate special election in Massachusetts. The race would be close, I figured — 53-47 for Coakley, or something like that — but the state’s blue tint would be just enough to save the Democrats.http://stevekornacki.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-massachusetts.html
I’d now like to qualify that prediction. Coakley’s internal poll last night, I’ve been told, showed her barely ahead, 46 to 44 percent. The momentum clearly favors Brown, and one very smart Massachusetts Democrat I know told me this morning that “this may be too far gone to recover.â€
So I was wrong: Brown may actually win.
http://stevekornacki.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-massachusetts.html
Gotta admit: she's worked hard for it. :-)
Rasmussen Reports has him in a statistical dead heat with CRoakley. In a state like Mass., that a Republican can challenge a democRAT is in itself a miracle.
www.BlueMassGroup.com
Exclusive BMG/Research 2000 poll: Coakley leads 49-41
by: David
Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 11:48:08 AM EST
(Bumped, because we shelled out BMG's hard-earned money for this. -- Bob - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
The results are in from BMG's exclusive statewide poll in next week's special Senate election. Research 2000 interviewed 500 likely voters on Tuesday and Wednesday (and we do mean "interviewed" -- Research 2000 does live interviews, unlike robo-pollsters Rasmussen and PPP). That means that our poll is the first (and so far only) one taken entirely after Monday's final televised debate. Here's what they came up with (margin of error is +/- 4%).Code: [Select]QUESTION: If the 2010 special election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Martha Coakley,
the Democrat, Scott Brown, the Republican, or Joseph Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate?
ALL DEM REP IND
Martha Coakley 49% 82% 7% 36%
Scott Brown 41% 12% 85% 49%
Joseph Kennedy 5% 1% 2% 11%
Undecided 5% 5% 6% 4%
SAMPLE FIGURES:
Men 241 (48%)
Women 259 (52%)
Democrats 199 (40%)
Republicans 92 (18%)
Independents 209 (42%)
White 447 (89%)
Black 20 (4%)
Hispanic 18 (4%)
Other 15 (3%)
18-29 79 (16%)
30-44 126 (25%)
45-59 207 (41%)
60+ 88 (18%)
Boston 279 (56%)
Southeast 106 (21%)
West/Central 115 (23%)
Martha Coakley: Terrible Prosecutorredstate (http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/01/14/martha-coakley-terrible-prosecutor/)
Show Us Where The Bad Prosecutor Touched You
Posted by Dan McLaughlin (Profile)
Thursday, January 14th at 4:53PM EST
3 Comments
It’s worth recalling, as the Massachusetts Senate election approaches, that Martha Coakley is not just some bland Democratic machine apparatchik. She’s a bland Democratic machine apparatchik with a long record as a prosecutor that includes some very ugly things.
Exhibit A is the notorious case, familiar to readers of the Wall Street Journal over the past three decades, of Gerald Amirault. The case, discussed in summary here, was a terrible miscarriage of justice involving fantastical accounts of sex abuse of children, exposed by Journal reporter Dorothy Rabinowitz; it was originally prosecuted by another politically ambitious Democrat, Scott Harshbarger. And then:
When Martha Coakley became district attorney of Middlesex County in 1999, the Amiraults were still in the news. But by this time hardly anyone believed they were guilty of the horrendous crimes they were alleged to have committed. In fact there was no evidence that anyone had abused any children in the Fells Acres Day Care.
But what did Martha Coakley do when the Parole Board voted unanimously (5-0) to pardon Gerald Amirault? She did everything in her power to see that he stayed in prison, including sending an assistant DA to oppose his release at the hearing. Coakley also went on talk shows to spout her views about his guilt. (Read about Martha Coakley’s involvement in Cheryl Amirault’s Plea Bargain also).
Anything less than a blowout by Coakley has to have the DimRats worried. Massachusetts is as far left as any state, and with health care hanging in the balance, you'd think every single DimRat that wants this bill to go through would be voting. If Dem turnout is low, then that means those staying home want this bill to fail. imo
Senate Democrats and affiliated outside groups are outspending their Republican counterparts by an almost two-to-one margin on television in the final week of the tight-as-a-tubesock special election between state Sen. Scott Brown (R) and state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D). The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is now committed to nearly $1 million in television ads in support of Coakley while the Service Employees International Union ($529,000) and Citizens for Strength and Security ($278,000), a labor-backed 527 group, are also spending heavily. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is not on television in the state although the Chamber of Commerce ($443,000), American Future Fund ($375,000) and Americans for Responsible Health Care ($204,000) are combining to spend just over $1 million for Brown. The spending by outside groups affiliated with Democrats is further evidence that the party is in triage mode, trying to fix the problems of the Coakley campaign through an major influx of cash and commercials. Coakley is doing herself no favors. Her most recent eyebrow raising comment came in a conversation with Boston Globe; when asked whether she wasn't doing enough to win the race, Coakley shot back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election." Um, OK.
This made me laugh
It was put together for Michael Graham - Republican talk show host on 96.9 Boston Talks, lampooning what the Coakley campaign has degraded into.[youtube=425,350]mcFVRQi3ZEo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
How much pull does Curt Schilling have?
Massachusetts Senate Moves to Toss Up
January 14, 2010
This race call is one of the toughest we've had in a long time. The modern electoral history of federal statewide races in Massachusetts argues strongly that while state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, could have a close race, at the end of the day it's unlikely that she ends up losing. After all, no Republican Senate candidate has won in the Bay State since 1972.
But the non-quantitative arguments are quite strong. Republican Scott Brown has been the superior candidate with, by a long shot, the better campaign.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
MA Senate moved to Toss-Up
Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.
Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won†the “free media†over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.
Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.
And just to make sure that the campaign is, in fact, dead, we now have this scintillating gem of abject boneheadery (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/game-changer-martha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room-video). I think we've just about ran out of forks to stick in her.In Catholic Massachusett(e)s?
And just to make sure that the campaign is, in fact, dead, we now have this scintillating gem of abject boneheadery (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/game-changer-martha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room-video). I think we've just about ran out of forks to stick in her.
This woman makes STUPID look smart.....
If she gets elected....her constituents deserve everything they get for being represented by an idiot.
What the hell is wrong with this woman ? The biggest cities in Massachusetts are extremely Catholic - Greater Boston - Fall River, New Bedford etc.. - Its as if she is now targeting her base for alienation. :mental:Please let us know if her comment reaches wide circulation. We want the pulse of the man o the street.
Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race
Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,†said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.â€
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
What the hell is wrong with this woman ? The biggest cities in Massachusetts are extremely Catholic - Greater Boston - Fall River, New Bedford etc.. - Its as if she is now targeting her base for alienation. :mental:It's even more chilling because she's talking about the alleged separation of church and state in emergency rooms! She's giving the endgame away.
HOLY CRAP !
Brown has met 50% in this poll - and a Coakley victory is still within the margin of error, but Damn...
BREAKING: Coakley -- Catholics Shouldn't Work in Hospitals†(http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/game-changermartha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room-video/)
Oh God please let him win!
And of, perchance, Brown wins the DUmmies and the clucking class will pout and kick dirt saying they had a bad candidate.
No...they had an arch-typical democrat. They endrsed her because she was one of them. Coakley is everything we have come to know and loathe in the likes of Boxer, Jackson-Lee, Feinstein, Fwank, Dodd, Rangel, Dead Ted, Reid, Pelosi...and Obama to name a few.
Globe going after Coakley also -- she lost this, the DNC did not:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/15/race_is_in_a_spinout/
Prominent Democrats in Boston are privately seething at the candidate and her campaign. First and foremost, they see the immediate impact defeat could have on the health care overhaul. Beyond that, they fret about the seismic impact a Republican victory in Massachusetts would have on Obama’s national standing. And they are nearly despondent about what a defeat would mean to Ted Kennedy’s legacy and memory.
From your article:
As if they had no hand in her selection or how she was managed.
The upside of Coakley: she's a stark contrast to Sarah Palin and I'll take Palin any day as would 4 out of 5 Americans. I hope/expect the contrast between our opposing matriarchs to become more pronounced over then next week or so.
Prominent Democrats in Boston are privately seething atthetheir candidate and her campaign.
This ad didn't last long. Look at around :05 (or the preview here) to see why.
[youtube=425,350]kXWftPYPTV0[/youtube]
Has anyone ever seen a major campaign this badly handled in one short week? Most of the blame goes to Coakley, but the DSCC was the group that sent Michael Meehan to help with messaging this week. His first contribution was to commit assault and battery on a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Now the DSCC chooses an image of the World Trade Center, Ground Zero on 9/11, to represent Wall Street and to attack Brown. That’s not just “distasteful and disrespectful†to someone who served in the war on terror and remains in the National Guard to this day, it’s flat-out stupidity.http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/15/dscc-uses-world-trade-center-image-in-anti-brown-ad/
And don’t believe it when the DSCC claims it was a mistake, either. The World Trade Center is a very distinctive-looking building, one that every American grew to know in the endless replays of the 9/11 attack. Anyone working in politics who didn’t recognize it either has been asleep for nine years or is irretrievably dense.
When the dust settles on this campaign, Democrats will be quick to blame Coakley for its failure (assuming she loses), but she won’t be the only one who screwed up this election.
We get rather ugly with that -- total homers that we are. :-)
Just when you thought it can't get any more disgusting, now we have this (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/01/coakleys-disgusting-rape-mailer.html). This is so bad that Brown even filed a complaint (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/breaking-scott-brown-files-ethics-complaint-seiu-used-state-resources-to-urge-workers-to-volunteer-for-coakley) about it.
That a woman would sink so low as to allow her name to be associated with something like that totally speaks to the character of the woman.
Hartford, CT- Joe Lieberman may be close to announcing his suppport for Massachusetts Senate Candidate Scott Brown. Citing the historical Healthcare Reform Bill as the main issue attracting Lieberman to endorse Brown's Campaign. Scott Brown is vehemently opposed to the proposed Healthcare Legislation.
Joe Lieberman has run against many of his Democratic Counterparts in the Senate over the so called Obamacare Health Care Reform Bill. Back in December, with the public option dead, Democrats revived an old proposal to expand Medicare, but Lieberman voted no. That plan was considered by a small percentage of liberals as a decent alternative to the public option leaving Lieberman at odds with Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid.
Speculation is such that if Lieberman were to endorse Scott Brown over the coming weekend that would most likely seal the defeat of Martha Coakley for Senate.
Latest Polling has Brown leading Coakley by a margin of 1 to 4 points. Momentum has shifted dramaticllay in the past week providing an intense national media attention. At stake is Helathcare Reform as well as further momentum to provide possible further shocking Election Results in this falls mid term elections.
Oh. My. God.
That a woman would sink so low as to allow her name to be associated with something like that totally speaks to the character of the woman.
This woman is the AG of a state?
Once she loses this election....wonder how long it will take the people of MA to get her out of the AG's office?
What does it tell you when POLICE UNIONS are backing Brown over the chief LEO in the state?
Uh oh... (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/12208/Joe_Lieberman_Endorsement_Scott_Brown_Latest_Polls_Show_Widening_Lead.html)If true this begs us to ask:
If true this begs us to ask:
Why won't Lieberman himself become the 41st vote against ObamaCare?
Or maybe he will.