Heat of the race shows Martha’s true character

[formerlurker]

Good article, but this is the best part:

The national implications of this campaign are obvious; the returns will be seen by many as a referendum on the president, for a Brown victory would suggest Americans are not happy with the way the country’s going.

But the local implications are enormous, too, because in Massachusetts we’re not used to having our opinions matter.

Referenda? We told the Beacon Hill crowd how we felt about term limits, capital punishment and legislative pay raises. No one listened. And then that same crowd made very sure no one knew how we felt about gay marriage.

So what’s beautiful about tomorrow is that they are finally going to have to listen to us as one of their own asks for our support.

And that makes this a certainty: When the totals are announced, we will have gotten exactly what we deserved

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1226317

[formerlurker]

This is the kind of political stupidity it takes for a Democrat to lose a Senate race in Massachusetts. You can’t just run a weak campaign, or commit a gaffe or two. You’ve got to run an absolute disaster of a campaign to lose to a Republican here.

And that’s what Coakley delivered. It wasn’t the Hindenburg or the Titanic. It was the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?&articleid=1226304&format=&page=1&listingType=opi#articleFull

[franksolich]

Just out of curiosity--in the elections of 1992, which didn't go especially well for Republicans, Massachusetts sent two (R)s to the U.S. House of Representatives, the first Republicans since Silvio Conte and Margaret Heckler to represent that commonwealth.

I don't recall their names; shortly thereafter I took off for the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants with free medical care for all, and when I came back, despite overwhelming successes by the Republican party elsewhere, these two guys had evaporated without a trace.

Does anybody remember their names, and why they weren't re-elected?

[zeitgeist]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?&articleid=1226304&format=&page=1&listingType=opi#articleFull

Great line:

And that’s what Coakley delivered. It wasn’t the Hindenburg or the Titanic. It was the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic.

[formerlurker]

Just out of curiosity--in the elections of 1992, which didn't go especially well for Republicans, Massachusetts sent two (R)s to the U.S. House of Representatives, the first Republicans since Silvio Conte and Margaret Heckler to represent that commonwealth.

I don't recall their names; shortly thereafter I took off for the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants with free medical care for all, and when I came back, despite overwhelming successes by the Republican party elsewhere, these two guys had evaporated without a trace.

Does anybody remember their names, and why they weren't re-elected?

Peter Blute was one of them (lost to McGovern).

Why? Redistricting.   The Democrats answer to losing to Republicans.   

[formerlurker]

I just looked it up -- Peter Tolkildsen is the other Republican.

[franksolich]

Thanks for the names, madam.

I looked them up.

Peter I. Blute (born January 28, 1956) is a former American Republican member of the United States House of Representatives. He served two terms, between January 3, 1993 and January 3, 1997, representing the Third District of Massachusetts.

He defeated a corrupt political cog in the machine in 1992, and then in turn got defeated by the current McGovern in 1996; he's apparently a talk-radio host now.

[Peter] Torkildsen served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1985 to 1991. From 1991 to 1992, Torklidsen was the state's Commissioner of Labor and Industries. He then went on to represent Massachusetts's 6th congressional district as a Republican for two terms, from 1993 until 1997.

He had a conservative record on fiscal and social issues during his terms in the Massachusetts House and challenged then State Senator Paul Cellucci for the GOP nomination for Lt. Governor of Massachusetts in 1990 as a pro-life candidate. In Congress, he was conservative on defense spending and fiscal restraint, but was pro-choice, in particular voting against the 1996 Partial Birth Abortion Ban. During his campaign for Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party in 2007, he claimed that he had a problem with the wording of the bill as it excluded an exception for saving the mother's life, and had he been re-elected would have supported a similar bill with the exception. He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Both from wikipedia.

They're both reasonably young--at least by Massachusetts standards--and one wonders if they're interested in going into politics again.