Massachusetts Senate Candidate Martha Coakley's Vote ALREADY Bought And Paid For

Start Thinking Right ^ | January 12, 2010 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

Is it Massachusetts or Massachusettes? No matter. Not as long as all those pharmaceutical and insurance industry lobbyists spell Martha Coakley's name right on all those fat checks they're writing to buy her election.

The line of the evening during last night's debate as reported by Politico:

David Gergen pressed Scott Brown on health care and the Kennedy legacy last night, producing a memorable exchange:"With all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat and it's not the Democrat's seat -- it's the people's seat," Brown says.

But that's not true at all if Brown's opponent wins.

If Martha Coakley wins, it will be PhRMA's seat. It will be Pfizer's, Bristol-Myers Squibb's, Astra-Zenaca's, Blue Cross', United Health's, and numerous other pharmaceutical and insurance company's seat.

This campaign has taken an amazing turn, particularly in the utter incomprehension of Democrats that the American people have genuinely turned against them.

The greatest signal of disconnect may have happened last night, when Democrat candidate Martha Coakley went to Washington to attend a fund raiser with more than 50% of the guest list coming from big Pharma (PhRMA).

Here is a video compendium of Barack Obama from 8 separate occasions saying he would make health care negotiations public by televising them on C-SPAN:

[Youtube video]

And here is Barack Obama from one of those 8 promises:

“we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”

And the man and the party that made that promise have instead buried their health care boondoggle into total secrecy to hide the bribes and corruption going on.

John McCain's heated exchange with Democrat Senator Max Baucus nakedly reveals the reality as to which party "is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies":

Mr. McCAIN. My response is, I don’t know what deal has been cut in Senator Reid’s office, as the deal was cut with the pharmaceutical companies and the deal was cut with the AMA and the deal was cut with the hospital association. But I know what the effect is. I know what the effect is. The bill would slice $55 billion—-

Mr. BAUCUS. This is not on my time because he is going to filibuster over there.

Mr. McCAIN. The House bill would slice $55 billion over 10 years for projected Medicare spending on home health services while the Senate bill would take $43 billion. I know that. But I don’t know the details of the deal that was cut over where the white smoke comes out. I don’t know what the deal was. I know what the deal was with PhRMA. I know what the deal was with PhRMA. They told them they would oppose drug reimportation from Canada, and they told PhRMA they would not allow competition for Medicare patients.

So I don’t know the deal that was cut that bought them, but I know deals have been going on, and I know they are unsavory. I know people, such as the lady who was just referred to, Bertha Milliard, are not too interested in seeing their home health care cut.

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield, with time being equally divided on both sides for this colloquy.

Mr. McCAIN. I don’t know what the deal was—-

Mr. BAUCUS. I can tell the Senator the deal. I am going to tell the Senator the deal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I don’t know what the deal was, but we will find out, just like the deals that were cut with all of these other organizations.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will tell the Senator what the deal was.

Mr. McCAIN. This place is full of lobbyists. I can’t walk through the hallway without bumping into one of their lobbyists. If the Senator keeps interrupting, he is violating the rules of the Senate. He needs to learn the rules of the Senate.

Did someone say lobbyists? Did someone talk about pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists being thick as fleas, and Democrats cutting one deal after another with them?

Well, last night a lot of these lobbyists quit flocking around the hallways of the Capital and instead flocked around Martha Coakley to shower her with campaign money.

Martha Coakley promises you, the American people, that if you trust her with the power and prestige of the United States Senate, she will be one more politician in the pockets of those lobbyists:

Coakley in trouble? Pharma and HMO lobbyists to the rescue

By: Timothy P. Carney Examiner Columnist 01/09/10 1:55 PM EST

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley speaks during a news conference at her campaign headquarters in Charlestown, Mass. Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is here.

Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there's also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.

All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley's host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.

Those HMOs (like Aetna) or drug companies who don't have lobbyists in Coakley's top tier of fundraisers? They're covered, because the host committee includes four lobbyists representing the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), two representing America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), and one representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)

So think of these top donors to health-care reform's 60th vote next time President Obama claims that he's battling the special interests in this battle. The army listed below is on Obama's side, and these clients will all benefit from "reform."

Here are some of Coakley fundraiser hosts with some of their current health care clients:

• Thomas Boggs, Patton Boggs: Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Chuck Brain, Capitol Hill Strategies: Amgen, BIO, Merck, PhRMA
• Susan Brophy, Glover Park Group: Blue Cross, Pfizer
• Steven Champlin, Duberstein Group: AHIP, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis
• Licy Do Canto, Raben Group: Amgen
• Gerald Cassidy, Cassidy & Associates: U. Mass Memorial Health Care
• David Castagnetti, Mehlman, Vogel, Castagnetti: Abbot Labs, AHIP, Astra-Zenaca, General Electric, Humana, Merck, PhRMA.
• Steven Elmendorf, Elmendorf Strategies: Medicines Company, PhRMA, United Health
• Shannon Finley, Capitol Counsel: Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross, GE, PhRMA, Sanofi-Aventis.
• Heather Podesta, Heather Podesta & Partners: Cigna, Eli Lilly, HealthSouth
• Tony Podesta, Podesta Group: Amgen, GE, Merck, Novartis.
• Robert Raben, Raben Group: Amgen, GE.

If Coakley pulls it out, this is the crowd that will have brought her here. If health-care reform passes, this is the crew that will have won.

This amounts to the most naked and most shameless chutzpah I have ever seen.

If Martha Coakley is elected to Senate, it will be total and abject mockery of everything that Obama promised the American people.

Just to further demonstrate what a total scam Martha Coakley's bought-and-paid-for candidacy is, she ran the usual liberal attack ad after the debate last night -

- which MISSPELLED THE STATE FOR WHICH SHE WAS RUNNING TO SUPPOSEDLY SERVE.

BOSTON (Legal Newsline) - An advertisement for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's senatorial campaign misspelled the name of the state Monday night.

After a three-person debate Monday night, an attack ad on Republican state Sen. Scott Brown paid for by the state's Democratic Party spelled it "Massachusettes."

The ad was "authorized by Martha Coakley for Senate and approved by Martha Coakley."

"The punchlines write themselves: Before you represent a state in the Senate, shouldn't you learn how to spell its name?" Jim Geraghty wrote for National Review Online.

We don't know for sure who owns Martha Coakley, or who pays for her smear ads, but we know they aren't from the state of Massachusetts. They're from some state called "Massachusettes," where pathologically dishonest demagogues promise bogus utopias, but unless disaster.

If you are a Democrat and you are not ashamed of your party, I have nothing but contempt for you.

[ksm1]

You know, I really wish Scott Brown hammered her with that on the debate. Actually forget hammering her, just one line would have been a complete takedown:

“You say that you’re going to get tough on health insurance companies. Why do you invite them to your fundraisers then?”

[Michael Eden]

Sorry to issue typo corrections by way of comment, but the sentence at the bottom that ends:

where pathologically dishonest demagogues promise bogus utopias, but UNLESS disaster.

should instead end:

where pathologically dishonest demagogues promise bogus utopias, but PRODUCE disaster.

[berdie]

I guess I’m having a senior moment. I read the whole article.

Why is Pharma coming to her rescue? Pharma is ultimately going to get screwed. Are they that dumb?

[KoRn]

"Why is Pharma coming to her rescue? Pharma is ultimately going to get screwed. Are they that dumb?"

The execs at these companies that are 'selling out' to the government just care about the bottom line(and their paychecks) while they are at their companies. The decisions they are making won't destroy their companies/industries until they are long gone.

[fight_truth_decay]

Coakley staffer pushing Weekly Standard reporter McCormack and accosting him.

#2 Video

http://redmassgroup.com/

Coakley Supporters were paid $50 to stand out at the debate, buys union support. Video

[Minn]

If you are a Democrat and you are not ashamed of your party, I have nothing but contempt for you.

That would make a great bumper sticker. But it would cover your whole bumper.

[fight_truth_decay]

..and this is only a sampling of what gurus like Soros has been investing in ongoing..health care stocks

For instance as of most recent build up/increases:

Most Traded Guru Stocks: Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp., Comcast Corp., Pfizer Inc
Posted by: guruek (IP Logged) Date: December 7, 2009 09:51PM

Pfizer Inc is a research-based, global pharmaceutical company. Pfizer Inc has a market cap of $145.74 billion; its shares were traded at around $18.06 with a P/E ratio of 8.3 and P/S ratio of 3. The dividend yield of Pfizer Inc stocks is 3.5%. Pfizer Inc had an annual average earning growth of 11% over the past 10 years.

As of September 30, 2009, Pfizer Inc is owned by 25 Gurus. 1 Guru Initiated Positions in PFE: Lee Ainslie bought 7,570,331 shares in the quarter that ended on 09/30/2009, which is 1.51% of the $8.32 billion portfolio of Maverick Capital.

4 Gurus Increased Positions in PFE: George Soros owns 2,488,800 shares , an increase of 10414.6% from the previous quarter. This position accounts for 0.93% of the $4.41 billion portfolio of Soros Fund Management LLC. Donald Yacktman owns 6,536,150 shares , an increase of 55.75% from the previous quarter. This position accounts for 6.27% of the $1.73 billion portfolio of Yacktman Asset Management Co.. Daniel Loeb owns 2,300,000 shares , an increase of 40.68% from the previous quarter. This position accounts for 3.05% of the $1.25 billion portfolio of Third Point, LLC. John Griffin owns 15,155,000 shares , an increase of 10.94% from the previous quarter. This position accounts for 5.68% of the $4.42 billion portfolio of Blue Ridge Capital.

[berdie]

There is something seriously wrong with this.

I know these “deals” have been being made since the beginning of time. But they were on the QT. They knew the public would frown on these kind of “Godfather” deals.

Now, it's out in the open...and nobody bats an eye that it is wrong.

So each “ethics line” we cross will be decimated.

As a society, I fear we are sunk.

[notaliberal]

I have no doubt she will win.

[Michael Eden]

If you can, get a copy of Liberal Fascism. It’s an eye-opener. Also get New Deal or Raw Deal and/or The Forgotten Man (can’t think of the authors’names).

One of the things you learn about fascism is that - while it is a form of socialism - it differs from Marxism in that Marxism directly owns the means of production while fascism regulates, bribes, or coerces the means of production into doing what fascist leaders want.

Same result, different means.

So we find that Obama has already made deals with Pharma, and with many of the players in the system. He gets what he wants - power over one-sixth of the economy - and they get something they want - security that Obama won’t plough them under.

That’s Fascism. We saw a lot of the same “dealmaking” with big business in Nazi Germany that we’re seeing today.

Communist China is now a hybrid of Maoist Marxism and fascism. Obama likey.

Jonah Goldberg also points out the “liberal fascism” of FDR’s New Deal. And, again, FDR co-opted large corporations to write the laws/regulations that would benefit themselves and drive under their smaller competitors.

That’s basically what’s going on now. The big players can make sweetheart deals with the government that will enable them to expand their market share even as the overall market shrinks to to Obama’s stupid policies.

Being “pro-capitalism” is NOT the same as being “pro-business.”

If conservatives can seriously get behind policies that will be beneficial for SMALL BUSINESSES (the true engines of a thriving capitalist system), they can become an unstoppable political force.

Less sweetheart deals; more sensible policies.