Posted on 01/17/2010 9:45:06 AM PST by dano1
Representatives of Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown say Democratic candidate Martha Coakley has until Tuesday to retract an incendiary campaign mailing or Brown will take legal action. At issue is a Coakley flier charging that Brown would have Massachusetts hospitals turn away all rape victims, a claim which a Brown spokeswoman called "a lie," "patently false," and "atrocious." "The campaign is calling on Martha Coakley and [Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman] John Walsh to retract the false statement," says Tarah Donoghue, a spokeswoman for the state Republican party who is speaking on behalf of the Brown campaign. "We're going to give them until Tuesday morning to do the right thing."
The flier, sent recently to voters by the Massachusetts Democratic Party, says: 1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.
The inner pages of the flier claim Brown will "take us backwards on women's health and rights." While Brown objects to the entire content of the ad, his lawyer argues that the front page is such an outrageous falsehood that it violates Massachusetts law governing false statements in political campaigns.
"The lie is on the front page, which is what the voter sees when they open up their mail," says Dan Winslow, counsel for the Brown campaign. "There is a lot of room in a political campaign for rough and tumble and sharp elbows and advocacy. But the bottom line is, you can't lie. You cannot lie to try to win an election, particularly at the 11th hour when it may be too late to change the lie. That in itself corrupts the democratic process."
Winslow cites a state law which says "No person shall make or publish, or cause to be made or published, any false statement in relation to any candidate for nomination or election to public office, which is designed or tends to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate."
The controversy stems from a 2005 Massachusetts law which requires hospitals to make emergency contraceptives available to rape victims. During debate on the law, state senator Brown offered an amendment that would have exempted medical professionals with "sincerely held religious beliefs," particularly at a number of Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, from the law's requirement to provide emergency contraception. If no one at a given hospital could provide the contraception, Brown's amendment required that hospital to transfer the rape victim to another facility where she could receive emergency contraception, at no cost to the victim. Brown's amendment failed, but he voted in favor of the final bill.
Coakley's campaign has hit Brown on the issue at several points in the campaign, running ads that said, "Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims." But the new flier takes Coakley's accusations to a new level, charging that Brown would have hospitals turn away all rape victims. While Brown objected to the earlier ads, saying they distorted his record, he did not threaten legal action until the new flier was sent out.
Not only did Brown vote in favor of the final emergency contraception bill, his campaign says he also made it very clear during the debate that he supported emergency contraception for rape victims. To bolster his case, the Brown campaign provided the Washington Examiner a copy of Brown's talking points from June 2005, from which he made his remarks to the Senate. "First and foremost, I fully support this legislation and recognize the importance of access to EC [emergency contraception] for rape victims," reads the first talking point.
"This amendment will not hinder the distribution of emergency contraception throughout the Commonwealth," the talking points continue (emphasis in the original). "I am offering this amendment because I feel that it is wrong to mandate an individual to do something that is against their 'sincerely held religious beliefs.'" In addition to the talking points, the Brown campaign also provided what it called "a contemporaneous (but not verbatim) narrative of [Brown's] remarks made on the Senate floor by State House News Service." That narrative supports Brown's version of events.
Nevertheless, the Coakley ad has been sent out, and its timing presents a particularly difficult situation for Brown. The Brown campaign issued the threat of legal action on Saturday, but given that local courts will be closed on Sunday and also on Monday, the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Brown's lawyers could not take any action until Tuesday at the earliest. And Tuesday, of course, just happens to be Election Day.
Still, Brown appears determined to act, even if the final resolution of the controversy is irrelevant to the outcome of the election. "The law creates a forum after the election for the facts to come out," Winslow says. "Scott Brown cannot have this lie stand."
A big AMEN to THAT, my FRiend!
This is why I am calling all like-minded FReepers over to the Prayer Thread.
Those of us who believe in the Power of Prayer are doing what we can to combat these spiritual powers of darkness.
Thank You!
Scott Brown is one superb candidate.
And has possibly two of the best ads I have seen in recent memory.
One: He stands in his kitchen and tells the folks, “by now you’ve probably seen the negative ads.” And it usually appears following a triple play of hit pieces from Coakley. It is perfect in the sense that Brown has well defined himself, while Coakley vacationed for a month (and now her message is all negative).
Two: He appears in South Boston (or Dorchester) amid working class voters, i.e. Reagan Dems (hardly the Wall Street types that he tagged with supporting). It’s a great editing job.
I hope Scott sues her heinous to the max....immediately.
That ad will only bring more votes for Brown. Finally the people of Massachusetts are fed up with their Democratic machine.
She is doing what democrats do best...lie.
On his Friday radio show Rush predicted some type of huge smear about Brown over the weekend. Which would give Brown very little time to respond to the lies.
Rush just reminding his listeners about how the game of politics is played.
I’m sure that the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts (sp?) will look into these serious allegations of law breaking and promptly prosecute any violation of Massachusetts law. I’m sure of it.
I see this pattern in liberals. If they need political leverage they will highjack anyones reputation in order to make political hay.
1. If she's winning, there's no cost at all to simply "withdraw the claim".
2. If she's losing Brown will be the winner, and if she didn't "withdraw the claim" earlier he's going to be pursuing a lawsuit against her as a loser without friends, and a lot of bitterness in the top ranks of the Democrat machine against her because a Senator Brown isn't going to bring home the loot for that party anymore and the best they can hope for is to make him happy.
So, what to do ~ well, looks like she has to "withdraw the claim".
A Republican that fights back. Doesn’t he know that Pubs are supposed to always bend over and take it, so that they’ll be loved on the Sunday news shows?
If you take a look at the goon that pushed the reporter to the ground as Martha Coakley looked on, notice the color of his sweater under his jacket.
Purple Army Indeed.
SEIU is an evil group of unionist thugs. They are making a concerted effort to unionize hospitals in New England, and the head of SEIU said that if a hospital resists, they will destroy their reputation and their relationship with their patients to achieve their goals.
(Note: In my denouncements of unions, I am always ready to accept and point out that there are many in the rank and file of that union who do not wish to be there, but must belong in order to work. We know that circumstance to exist from the pictures of SEIU members who intend to vote for Scott Brown)
One only needs to look at the gross intimidation and slanderous tactics they used against Beth Israel.
To get a good idea of who these despicable people are, what their goals are and who they are aligned with, read this article at National Review Online at this link: "Unholy Union" by Stephen Spruiell
“Nevertheless, the Coakley ad has been sent out, and its timing presents a particularly difficult situation for Brown. The Brown campaign issued the threat of legal action on Saturday, but given that local courts will be closed on Sunday and also on Monday, the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Brown’s lawyers could not take any action until Tuesday at the earliest. And Tuesday, of course, just happens to be Election Day.”
+++++++++++++++
a RAT is a RAT is a RAT.
http://www.brownforussenate.com/call-from-home-registration
call tomorrow and freep this.. keep it going ... forget the tricks there are distractions.......
FOCUS........ CALL TOMORROW......
LOL a lying DEM??? Who’d a thunk it???
Question for those in the know about Mass. politics. What are the chances with this stunningly close senate race showing how fed up the voters are, of seeing Barney Frank lose in ‘10?
If Limbaugh or Hannity said the same thing (”I’d cheat to keep those bastards out”) on the Republican side, it would be all over the evening news and the nation’s editorial pages. But only conservatives will hear about these outrageous comments.
Coakley is the witch who recommended a known child rapist(& police officer) to get out on bail!
******
Coakley Coddled Curling Iron Child Rapist Cop
Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley stubbornly refused to indict a cop who all but admitted to raping a 23-month old baby – his niece – with a hot object – probably a curling iron – until the baby’s mother applied to file criminal charges against the rapist herself.
Democrat Coakley is running to replace the late, bloated drunkard Ted Kennedy in the US Senate. Her opponent in the January 19th special election is Scott Brown, who could use everyone’s financial help in defeating the rapist-coddling health-care-debacle-supporting Coakley.
What’s worse is that Coakley fought to keep the baby rapist free on his own recognizance after reluctantly indicting him. He only went to jail after Coakley’s successor got him convicted – two years later.
The Winfield case began Oct. 13, 2005, after a day when Winfield and his wife were baby sitting their niece, along with their own two children.
That afternoon, when the toddler’s grandmother stopped by to pick her up, she found the toddler crying, and the child refused to walk. After taking the toddler home, the grandmother changed her diaper and noticed what she could only conclude was a severe diaper rash, according to a narrative of the case detailed in court documents.
******
MA Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, her party’s supposedly “best” nominee for the Senate, recommended that a convicted child rapist be released with no cash bail despite the plethora of evidence that he raped a 23-month-old girl with a hot, curling iron.
This...ahem...misjudgment by the then-DA occurred in 2006, but stemmed from an October 2005 case in which a policeman whose union-representative father steered lots of endorsements and donations to the Coakley for AG campaign raped a 23-month-old toddler, also his own niece! This story ought to be front-and-center in the mainstream, liberal media, but it isn’t because it would be too damning for Coakley. MA voters ought to ask themselves, Do we want a woman whose office recommended releasing a convicted child rapist as our senator??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.