Posted on 01/18/2010 4:51:57 PM PST by Liz
George Stephanopoulous reports this evening to ABC-TV News anchor, Diane Sawyer, that the Obama White House is bracing for a shatterng loss in MA. Obama had not planned to campaign for Coakley, then thought it best to make an appearance,. Now she is running ads from that appearance. But the White House tacitly acknowledges that the Republican Scott Brown will take the blue, blue, blue state of MA by storm.
Brown, a state Senator, has been enthusiastically endorsed by organized, vociferous Tea Partiers who have cheered him on around the state at each campaign stop. A Brown win would blow ObamaCare out of the political waters.
THE BOSTON HERALD NAILS IT:
1/18/2010, By Michael Graham
FR Posted by goldstategop
No matter what happens at the ballot box tomorrow, one thing is certain: Martha Coakley is a loser. Even if Bill Clinton and Barack Obama can somehow rescue her candidacy, Coakley will never recover from the self-inflicted damage of the worst political campaign in recent history.
Win or lose, she will forever be Martha the Blind - the woman who couldn’t see terrorists in Afghanistan, or a staffer giving a beatdown to a reporter right before her eyes. She’s Sen. Spellcheck, forced to pull one ad because her campaign misspelled Massachusetts, then another because it superimposed Scott Brown’s image in front of the World Trade Center. Given the incompetence of her campaign, she was lucky it was a pre-9/11 photo of the towers.
In the Democratic primary, Coakley ran on the one thing she couldn’t get wrong: being a woman. It’s been downhill ever since. Right after losing the primary, Rep. Michael Capuano was asked what he learned on the campaign trail. “You’re screwed,” he told his Democratic colleagues. Everyone wondered what he meant. Now we know.
While Scott Brown was wearing out a set of truck tires on retail politics, Coakley sniffed at the idea of “standing outside Fenway Park [map], in the cold, shaking hands.”
She certainly didn’t waste time explaining her positions on health care or national security to the voters, in part because when she tried, it became painfully clear she didn’t understand them herself. Coakley’s arrogant assumption of victory was so strong that midway through the brief campaign season, she simply disappeared off the campaign trail for days.
When independent voters and moderate Democrats were wondering if Coakley was out of touch, she answered by jetting off to Washington for a big-dollar lobbyist fundraiser. Why didn’t she just stop by AIG and present them with a bonus check while she was at it?
Then suddenly she found herself in a competitive political race. And how did Coakley respond? She threw a political tantrum. Voters were deluged with Coakley’s attack ads - so many they could barely fit in the commercial breaks. Dark, ominous and ugly, Coakley’s media message was the polar opposite to that offered by smiling Scott Brown.
In the end, Coakley spent millions on TV ads that actually drove her own numbers down. And then, as though to prove she couldn’t do anything right, she held a fundraiser starring the UN envoy to Haiti. What was Coakley thinking, having Bill Clinton at a $2,400-per-person fundraiser at the Fairmont Copley while crying Haitian families were clawing through the rubble looking for loved ones? Is rescuing a desperately incompetent Democrat really more important than saving the starving of Haiti?
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. She may end up in the Senate yet, but Martha Coakley will never recover.
Sorry - I didn’t mean for “touting” to come across as such an accusation.
My main point is that I need to understand his core beliefs before I could consider supporting him for national office. At this point, he is an unknown - even less known than Sarah Palin was when she was selected for VP (and she was on the edge of mystery).
We agree on one point, for certain. Getting a senator from Massachusetts elected that has some conservative principles is a wonderful thing! Scott fits that bill, at the very least.
Glad to hear this. I should have added “wholesome” looking as well.
He looks pretty good to me.
I grew up in Newton, Massachusetts. No right winger has ever been elected there for anything. This is as good as it will ever get there. You need to have lived there to fully comprehend what I am talking about ;-)
The last time I voted for a "pro-choice" Republican, I lived to regret it. He turned out to be worse than the democrat he replaced. I vowed at that time NEVER to vote for a mealy mouthed "pro-choice" candidate again. I violated my own principles, as did a lot of pro-lifers on the "hope" that "change" would take place in our state. It did take place. God has seen to it to give us the government we wanted and deserved and we are reaping the consequences.
Yes Scott Brown may be able to rescue us from Healthcare, but in the end, I believe that if I violated my first principles to cast a vote for him, then I would be engaging in a Faustian bargain.
Would you trade the life of your son for a better economy?
sw
I believe that if I violated my first principles to cast a vote for him, then I would be engaging in a Faustian bargain.
Dr. Faust at least had some temporary gains, when we engage in these deals with RINOs we ALWAYS seem to get screwed.
This Friday will mark thirty seven years since the wholesale slaughter began and aside from the Reagan years America has been pretty much on a decline the entire time.
Nobody ever wants to address the fact that, right or wrong, America instituted social programs (mainly Social Security and Medicare) which were formulated with the assumption of predictable population growth. The Baby Boom placed a huge strain on these assumptions; however, this wouldn't be a problem as long as the Boomers reproduced at normal rates. But, they DIDN'T, they MURDERED a generation of 50 MILLION PLUS. So, next time someone brings up the economy or the impending collapse of Social Security and Medicare or the proplem with illegal aliens, remind them that there were 50 MILLION who would be working and paying taxes and buying stuff, etc., but they were MURDERED for the sake of convenience.
And we wouldn’t have an unemployment problem with countless more entrepreneurs churning out ideas.
We probably murdered Einstein.
we can hope & Pray the good voters in Mass will fulfill this White House nightmare
Worldwide there have been over ONE BILLION abortions in the last century.
We have probably murdered the cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and who knows what technological advances we don’t even know about.
I can't agree with his last sentence. If Martha Coakley makes it to the Senate, she's recovered as much as she needs to.
Someone upthread did defend him as pro life. I was answering them and you commented on that post. I wasn’t accusing you of portraying him as pro life.
When you only have a choice between a left wing Rat and a moderate Pub I'll take the Pub. If you have a 3rd choice with the perfect candidate I'll look at that. My experience has been that with the 3rd choice the Rat always wins.
God has seen to it to give us the government we wanted and deserved and we are reaping the consequences.
Amen. Do we have to continue to suffer or can we change?
You can only vote for real people in real races.
It's a definite weakness in the system.
While I would never presume to know the Mind of God, I would have a difficult time even asking Him to bestow any blessings on a nation that murders a baby every 24 SECONDS. Sodom and Gomorrah paled in comparison to modern America.
The economy is only one of the fronts we are fighting on in this WAR. We are in a war for the survival of this nation. The enemy is the left. They seek to make everyone dependent upon govt for all things.
A better comparison would be to Winston Churchill who during the blitz did not evacuate the cities even though the British had broken the German codes and knew they would be bombed. He needed to win the war and to help in that information was key.
Abortion is a battle we can't win by being absolutist. It's a battle that has to be fought on a lot of fronts among which are tighter restrictions, time limits, parental notification and approval, ultrasounds being shown to mothers before the abortion, etc. If we only support candidates that say no abortions none of the time we can't get a majority to support us.
The question is do we want to win the war a little bit at a time, or lose but have the moral high ground?
I agree. The question is how best to fight this abomination. We do not have the support to end it completely. Do we fight to end as much of it as we can and keep fighting, or do we say "hey until the perfect candidate comes along I'm sitting it out". I'm thinking fight, fight, fight.
ping
Some time last year, reflecting on these things, it became so evident to me that the right of life is the touchstone. If a person doesn't have life, then dead people don't care much about budgets, health care, and freedom.
So, now we put one more anti-life vote into gov't on "our" side who will not stand with "us" when it comes time to stand for the ultimate right.
Life is not an "issue." It is a RIGHT.
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.