Martha Coakley Will Win & I’d Vote For Her

Yes, I would vote for her if I was eligible to vote in Massachusetts.  And yes, I do expect she will win. I could be wrong – wouldn’t be the first time (I wanted Joe Biden in the 2008 primary), but that’s my prediction.

Regular readers can guess why:

I’m a reliable left of center voter except on a few issues (I vote against casinos and am very independent when Israel is involved, rarely going into the move all Israelis to Siberia territory but also reliably against settlement expansion).

And Scott Brown is an untenable option for me just on the basis of his positions on pretty much every single issue that matters to me:

He is anti-choice bordering on being anti-woman (see more here, where the Boston Globe compares the candidates’ positions on choice), he thinks Obama was born out of wedlock, he espouses a position that denies decency to rape victims, anti-immigration groups love him, gun rights advocates want him, he opposes same-sex marriage, disparaged and then apologized for disparaging lesbian adoption, supports the federal DOMA and is considered anti-science.

Many left of center folks have come up with reasons to be extremely miserable with Martha Coakley – Taylor Marsh’s posts exemplify that group’s discontent.  Amy Siskind of The New Agenda, in an entry at The Huffington Post called “The Coakley Hangover,” conveys similar sentiments.

But as Digby says in her post, “Hitting the Wall” (read PunditMom’s post, “Am I Angrier at Martha Coakley or the Democratic Party?” for a variation on the same theme):

I think a lot depends upon this election in Massachusetts, frankly. If Martha Coakley loses, it will be very bad for progressives.  Worse than we can imagine. After the so-called lessons of Virginia and New Jersey, there will be no fighting back the perception that the party is in big trouble, regardless of whether it’s true — and it’s hard to argue at that point that it isn’t.  Sadly,  the lesson that will be taken from losing Ted Kennedy’s seat to a right wing Republican  is not that the Democrats have been too liberal, I guarantee it. What will follow will likely be a sharp turn to the right.

So, job one is to make sure that Senator Playmate is defeated.  If you live in Massachusetts, and I know I have readers there, please do what you can to get out the vote.  The consequences are quite dire if Coakley loses.

Seriously, if you live in Massachusetts, do get yourself out to vote for Martha Coakley and volunteer to help if you can.  A loss will be so devastating that I’m afraid the Democrats will end up calling to invade Yemen  and institute shoot to kill orders for illegal immigrants if they don’t win this race. They will panic, bet on it.

Not surprisingly, Coakley has been treated with sexism from the start, been analyzed on her “babe factor” (for real) and she gets nothing but grief for being a serious campaigner. Sounds reminiscent of how Hillary Clinton was treated by the pundits as well.  Women are too mushy if they cry, or they’re faking, and they are cold if they are serious.  Cannot win for losing.

Feh.

NB: Not once have I mentioned the abomination that is the 17% of women in the U.S. Senate and the fact that she would be the first woman to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate. However, these are both critical milestones that bring our country’s federal government closer to a truly representative body.

For more, please visit the original post at Writes Like She Talks.

75 Comments

  1. Welcome to the one party state. The Democrats nominate som one who makes empty suits look like geniuses and still people are going to automatically vote for the Democratic Party candidate because the candidate has a (D) next to their name.

    Repeating Moveon.org talking points does not make the Democratic candidate look any better. Maybe the Democrats in Mass. should pay attention to what their doing now instead of just automatically voting for someone named Kennedy.

  2. Agreed, agreed, agreed, Jill, and I hope so much that you're right. For once (or twice) I am relying on a woman's intuiton.

    Thanks

  3. You are making yourself look like the one who supports talking points with your generic criticism of a post that offers varied sources on multiple issues. I'm way too conservative for Moveon.org – which only goes to show that you haven't clicked on a single link I provided.

    Talk about writing a knee-jerk response – thanks for epitomizing it.

  4. I'm sorry, but you lost all credibility by saying you wanted Joe Biden to win the primary.

  5. I thought it was obligatory for Original Posters here to insist that they were moderates despite pushing hard for the most liberal health care takeover by the most liberal Congress and Administration in history. Yeah, not wanting to throw the Israelis into the sea, how moderate of you. I can feel the moderation crackling through the air. lol

  6. More proof that negative campaigning works I guess. And questioning global warming is now “anti-science”? I have two degrees in science-related fields so I never guessed I was really anti-science.

  7. LOL re: losing credibility because of my support for Biden. He was the only one who has spoken about nuclear proliferation as a major, major motivator for the unstability in the world and I agree with him and applaud him for raising it every time he did over the last several years.

  8. DaMav – I actually have no clue what you're talking about re: the insisting I'm moderate or the pushing hard for liberal health care. I didn't even mention health care so you know help me out here – what are you talking about?

    As for the Israelis into the sea, you got me on that only because it's an inside piece of information for people who've been following my writing for the last six years – four or so at TMV. I'm happy to give you links if you're that interested – but if you prefer to just give knee-jerk thumbnails of someone, go for it.

  9. DaGoat – why would you suggest that my post has a thing to do with the campaigning – I live in Ohio – I haven't watched or seen a single ad from either. I've watched Brown talk about Obama not being born while his parents are married and I've seen his Cosmo naked photo spread. That's it. Seriously – you posters really come to these posts with YOUR opinion firmly planted. Why don't you click on a link or two? If you're not open-minded, don't read the post. If you want to slam people around, start your own blog. Oy.

  10. Ha – well – I don't consider it intuition. It has to do with having been born and raised on the East Coast, mostly in CT and being married to someone from Bahston with relatives there who run the political ideology gamut. It's also a result of having run for office – I know that it's all about numbers in the last few days and seriously, if Coakley cannot get a win out of this, she has no one to blame but herself. I say that it is numerically impossible for her to lose unless she loses it – and you know, she could. But I highly doubt it.

    Thanks.

  11. Jill, intuition or political savvy (hopefully the latter), I still hope you are right.

  12. I still do not believe that is any reason for supporting a candidate, especially when Barack Obama shares almost his exact same views, except with more realism.

  13. Well – I mean, if you really want to dialogue about Biden, we could do that, though not tonight probably, but in general, I found Biden to have far more of many things than all the other candidates. I've written this many times since 2007 when Obama entered – my faves were Biden, Dodd and Richardson. I never like Edwards, and have always looked askance at Obama and Clinton. You'd have to go back and read all my posts from 07 and 08 to really get a full sense but Biden is brainy and straightforward with experience in real life and politics. I found him to be the least slick.

  14. I did click on your links, here is a sampling:

    “Why Does Republican Candidate Scott Brown Hate Rape Victims?”

    “Defeat Regressive, Anti-Woman Scott Brown”

    “MA Senate candidate Scott Brown pushes anti-science nonsense”

    Looks like negative campaign stuff to me.

    Then you complain about sexist treatment of Coakley while Digby refers to Brown as Senator Playmate.

    And you never did explain why I'm anti-science?

  15. DaGoat – how do I know whether you are anti-science or not? That's an insane demand “explain why I'm anti-science.” You got some writings for me to review? Yeesh.

    As for all the others – honey, honey, honey – if you are showing me/us here that you judge content based on a headline that is intended to get hits via SEO, then really – that is about as shallow as it gets. Show some media literacy skills would you?

  16. Another bullseye Jill. Thanks for your posting. I know it isn't popular to get right to the nitty gritty and dispense with all the tit for tat nonsense political forums are so fond of, but I had another birthday today and one of my resolutions is to be more concise. :-) What it comes down to is this: No candidate is perfect, they all have flaws and warts, some just have more than others. In this case Brown has a LOT more. Once the partisan spin is removed, when the truth is allowed show through, when facts and objectivity are given precedence over willful ignorance and ideological dysfunction, then it's clear to see that Coakley is the more reasonable, the more rational, and definitely the least toxic choice. This is really a simple one for those who want to prioritize in a thoughtful way. It isn't what what the reactionary blowhards are trying to feed your head with. It's what is going to be best for the country in the long term. Not what is good for a party, but what is good for the country. It doesnt get any simpler than that.

  17. Right. You lay down this impassioned rant for Coakley. Obama, Barney Frank, and numerous others have emphasized that Cokely must win for ObamaCare to pass. But you can't imagine how I could draw a conclusion that you want to see ObamaCare pass since you didn't explicitly spell that out.

    Here's another knee-jerk special; a regionally appropriate one for you. :-) I go into the woods, see a tree with buckeye nuts hanging on it. I immediately conclude that it is a Aesculus glabra — and get this — even without a sign!

    As the moderate part, that was a joke about a recent debate seen here over whether someone was a moderate, not really directed at you. It's a poor joke that needs an explanation, so my bad.

    No, I'm not really interested in reading more anti-Israeli links. Seen enough of that nonsense, but thanks. Really

  18. Wow – yup – I would say that's pretty much how I've had to look at it. I've been involved in some extremely difficult debates over the last two months in regard to real distaste many women in particular have for Coakley but you nail it here: “This is really a simple one for those who want to prioritize in a thoughtful way.” If anything, her biggest problem is not being left enough. Frankly, Brown strikes me as being like silly putty – he's going to take whatever form those around him mold him into. That's not to say that Coakley hasn't altered her positions – that's part of what's gotten her in trouble. But what's something I think we really have to learn from: where are the really excellent campaigns to be run by women? That's making me nervous – Clinton, Coakley. I think Gillibrand is setting a good strong tone for her possible primary with Ford, but seriously – this needs to be unpacked. Thanks for commenting.

  19. Gonna start from the bottom:

    1. OY YOY YOY YOY YOY as Ricky Ricardo used to say re: my anti-Israel rants. That is so 100% proof positive how little you have read that I've written but hey, if ignorance works for you, go for it (oh ok I can't help – I'm on the board of the American Jewish Committee – I think it would be news to them to tell them I'm anti-Israel but let me know if you want some emails).

    2. I've never seen a buckeye and I root for the Hoyas but I do know that it's considered a dirty tree. (Only moved to NE Ohio 22 yrs ago and have always lived in this part)

    3. Wow – what I wrote is what you called an “impassioned rant”? Obviously you've never read one of my impassioned rants. But again, go visit WLST and you'll find plenty – the ones about the pale male bastions in the Ohio GOP, the ones about how insane John Kasich is for wanting to eliminate the Ohio income tax. Those are far closer to rants. This thing for Coakley? Tepid at best. And frankly – again – if you knew what I wrote, there's extremely little passion in it for Coakley – it's all about what the alternative looks like. That's no ringing endorsement – but you are so jaded and desiring to paint the messenger in a certain way that you fail to see.

    Face it – you don't even know HOW I feel about health care reform other than the fact that it's pretty sucky in terms of how it treats women. Truly. Get a grip, DaMav and stop projecting your fears and paranoia onto what I wrote.

  20. I think Brown is basically a lightweight, a pretty face, and a tool of the right. I don't see anything to indicate he has much vision or experience – not the sort of experience and vision one would hope for in what we used to call a “leader”. Hopefully the fickle and apparently disgruntled voters in Mass will figure that out before Tuesday. Needless to say, there could be national, longterm repercussions from a Brown win, and something the anti-Coakley folks don't seem to realize is that such a scenario wouldn't be as much a blow to the democrats as it would be a blow to Americans in general.

  21. I think what all of us who care about the integrity of the functioning of our federal legislature MUST join together to examine is what happens when a group is able to congeal together their anger and dislike well enough to make shamans rise up who will take on the shape of that anger and dislike, but be nothing more than a vessel. I really feel that that's all people like Brown, or the guy who challenged the legislator in upstate NY or here in Ohio we've got some similar “vessels” taking shape, just as the tea party-followers in particular seem to gel together. What confounds me the most is how, no matter how much they rail against Obama et al., they are in fact pushing forth the same meme “JOIN!” that Obama did – which I absolutely detested – it creeped me out. Any group that uses that kind of influence does creep me out, lol. I just want people to come to their own conclusions – sure, I usually want it to be the one I've reached. :) But I still need them to feel that it's theirs and not just something they're accepting because they have nothing else.

  22. Actually you are quite funny.

    For living in Ohio all those years, you don't realize that the Buckeye is the State tree? Dirty? Wott? That's why the Ohio State University teams are called the Buckeyes? Dirty?

    If you want to see ObamaCare defeated just say that. I'll gladly retract. I'll bet I nailed it on the nose and you are just embarrassed to admit it.

    Thanks for the fun. Dirty? rofl

  23. The question of health care reform is irrelevant to me in regard to Coakley. I side with the commentaries that focus on the fact that this person elected will be in for six years – that is what is relevant to me as a voter. You can paint me all kinds of things for your convenience but it doesn't make it so. No dice.

    As for buckeyes and dirty trees, go crazy:

    http://www.bobklips.com/dirtytrees1.html

    Your skepticism over what I write and why I would write it is really approaching epic levels. I hope life hasn't been that awful to you that you take it out on strangers day in and day out.

  24. I think what all of us who care about the integrity of the functioning of our federal legislature MUST join together to examine is what happens when a group is able to congeal together their anger and dislike well enough to make shamans rise up who will take on the shape of that anger and dislike, but be nothing more than a vessel. I really feel that that's all people like Brown, or the guy who challenged the legislator in upstate NY or here in Ohio we've got some similar “vessels” taking shape, just as the tea party-followers in particular seem to gel together. What confounds me the most is how, no matter how much they rail against Obama et al., they are in fact pushing forth the same meme “JOIN!” that Obama did – which I absolutely detested – it creeped me out. Any group that uses that kind of influence does creep me out, lol. I just want people to come to their own conclusions – sure, I usually want it to be the one I've reached. :) But I still need them to feel that it's theirs and not just something they're accepting because they have nothing else.

    It is so refreshing to read genuine, thoughtful, well-reasoned commentary like yours. I agree with your observations and conclusions, and wish more of our citizens were less motivated by demagoguery and were willing to engage in more honest examination – not excluding self-examination. This atmosphere of low standards and low expectations – as well as contention for contentions own sake is ruining honest productive dialogue and by extension is very, very bad for the country. Apologies for speaking the obvious.

  25. By the way, don't be afraid to take DaMav to the woodshed if you need to. I've had good results with that. . . they just don't last very long. ;-)

  26. Actually I'm being quite nice. I tossed a couple jokes your way, found an example tailored to your region of the country, and haven't bothered to remind you that being Jewish doesn't prove you aren't against Israel. Heck I even apologized for making a bad joke.

    I've been chuckling through all of this but apparently you are too important for that, so have a great evening

  27. All I have to do is yell “don't waterboard me man” and GreenJeans shows up, chases you off, and hires me a lawyer.

  28. Don't know what being important has to do with anything, DaMav. I wouldn't take the time to blog about this unless I took it seriously. If you have enough free time to laugh through a thread like this one, well – lucky you.

    As for the Jew being able to be an anti-Semite thing, try it in someone else's thread.

  29. His arguments are specious if existent at all. Not worth the time beyond what I've already written – very transparents. Most here know that I like to dig in – but not with game playing and superficial rhetoric (kind of redundant I guess!). But thanks. Watching Defiance with my husband right now. Had to take a break to change his contacts. :)

  30. Hi Jill. Great article. But I do have a bit of contention with it.

    First of all, I'm not going to try to be a mouthpiece for Scott Brown. I do not know as much about him as I do about Martha Coakley. I do know enough to know that I could not support her if I were eligible to vote in Massachusetts.

    Against the constituents in her state, “Coakley spoke out strongly against a ban on so-called “partial birth abortion,’’ a procedure used late in pregnancies now barred unless the mother’s life is at risk.”
    As you know, the vast majority of all Americans, both liberal and conservative, are against partial birth abortion. Coakley is not, and fought against the ban. Since that time, she has been spotty with her support of it. Brown, too, hasn't held the typical conservative view of abortion either. He's more of a liberal republican in that sense.

    Although the electorate of Massachusetts is overwhelmingly Democrat, these stances on abortion fit Coakley's special interests and not those of the citizens of Massachusetts – no matter how “liberal” they appear to the rest of the nation.

    Don't get me wrong. It's not that I want Brown to win, but I do want a lesser monopoly in the Senate presently held by the Democrats. No party should hold that kind of power – ever.

  31. “Biden is brainy and straightforward with experience in real life and politics. I found him to be the least slick.”

    Don't apologize for liking Biden, Jill. I like him too. I followed him over the past 15 years and really got a sense that he was a pretty straight shooter. His famous (infamous) gaffs that the conservative press pounces on, are just a sign that he doesn't rely on teleprompters and avoids political “handlers”. That alone, makes him a bit more real than most politicians.

    How many other candidates in 2008 can say that? Well, maybe one……Sarah Palin.

  32. “As for all the others – honey, honey, honey – if you are showing me/us here that you judge content based on a headline that is intended to get hits via SEO, then really – that is about as shallow as it gets.”

    In DaGoat's defense, those “headlines” are what the sheep out there believe. Those of us (I would venture to say most on TMV) go beyond the “hit getter” and seek the story. But for most, that quick drive-by headline is what is remembered. They are, indeed, designed for that purpose – not (only) to get hits on the internet. DaGoat is right about that. This is what makes them a liberal media source.

  33. Well Jill, I am Partisan. Though I don't agree with every issue the Democrats take up, I vote Democrat because this country is way too right wing for the world and for me. Save for the screwball LGBT agenda, the Democrat agenda is very close to mine.

    I would vote for her simply because she'll carry the Obama agenda, which is my agenda. IMO any other reason to vote for her is milk toast.

  34. DaGoat shows his ignorance (again) in his reply to you. There are some areas in which ideologues such as he simply turn off their brains. Consider the geologist who became a Biblical literalist and thereafter did no research except to try and explain how geological features that the scientists in the field explain by natural processes were in fact proof of Biblical inerrancy and many of them were the result of the Great Flood. Ideology first, science a distant second. If a large majority of scientists in the field directly related to the issue disagree with the ideologue then they must be wrong, frauds or in some other way lesser intellects than the ideologue. It's the way they think and DaGoat has never once displayed any variation from this pattern.

  35. Did someone just seriously compare Joe Biden to Sarah Palin? .. I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

  36. Hmm well to clarify, I'm not a global warming denier, more of a doubter. I understand the existence of global warming, but the questions are really how much of it is due to man's influence, how much will be self-correcting, what will be the long term effects and what are the best ways to prevent them, if any.

    The answers to these questions are mired in partisan wrangling. As a scientific issue it should not be partisan as the goal of both sides should be to get to the correct answer, not decide what the answer is first then rabidly defend it. It is the current partisan nature of the debate which is anti-science, whether it's coming from Jill Miller Zimon or Rush Limbaugh.

  37. Against the constituents in her state, “Coakley spoke out strongly against a ban on so-called “partial birth abortion,’’ a procedure used late in pregnancies now barred unless the mother’s life is at risk.”

    A) There is no such thing as partial birth abortion, it's either an Intact dilation and extraction (IDX), also known as intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction (D&X, or DNX), intrauterine cranial decompression
    B) It's none of your business, nor mine how other people plan their family and considering that there is nothing that will send you and the rest of your family to the poor house faster than having an infant born with congenital abnormalities…
    C) The law has worked so well that now the doctors are poisoning the fetus to ensure that there can be no live birth.

    In response to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, many abortion providers in Boston and around the country have adopted a defensive tactic. To avoid any chance of partially delivering a live fetus, they are injecting fetuses with lethal drugs before procedures.

    In Boston, three major Harvard-affiliated hospitals — Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's, and Beth Israel Deaconess — have responded to the ban by making the injections the new standard operating procedure for abortions beginning at around 20 weeks' gestation, said Dr. Michael F. Greene, director of obstetrics at Mass. General.

  38. The problem with electing Republicans is that no matter how moderate they sound and have been in the past, once they get to DC they start voting as a block with the most conservative troglodytes that the South elects.

  39. Agreed.

  40. Again, how you deem the single phrase with a hyperlink as adequate evidence of what I think about climate change and global warming, let alone whether what I trust as a source is partisan or not? Now that made me laugh. Thanks! You just have me pitying you, wow.

  41. Re: the comment on Coakley/Brown and abortion methods: I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't see this particularly race as able to be boiled down to one issue for either of them – it's simply too important to me to vote and given the options, I'd vote for Coakley. But I understand your position – it's not uncommon. I'm just imagining if I did in fact live there, what I would do. Being honest, not saying it's the best – far from it sadly.

  42. Jim, without getting into the specific argument as relates to DaGoat, I wholeheartly agree with your example and how it explains the mindset of a larger group of people. If a lay-person (especially a lay-person who is politically active ;-) is going to study and research an issue (scientific, political, sociological, etc.) and they go into it with a preference for the outcome, they are unlikely to give equal weight to the entire picture, and will tend to concentrate on those parts of it that resonate for them. People need to think bigger and be willing to sacrifice a little more of their comfort zone if honesty is truly the goal.

  43. LOL – well – you and I will not agree on this I fear, but what you may be thinking of as Sarah Palin gaffes, I don't recall quite that way! She has even tried to explain away what we might call gaffes as being the product of “gotcha” media. My take is more that she wants us to think that everything is planned – I can't recall her ever being embarrassed or apologetic about an answer or statement – she seems to me to behave as though every single word and impression she gives is exactly what she intended. You know rather than saying that the Putin peering over into Alaska thing was really hyperbole, she digs in deeper to say that that's really accurate.

    However, with Biden, when people have called something a gaffe, my sense is that he often agreed it was a gaffe and occasionally has apologized. He got that the words indicated something other than what he intended and had, in fact, made a gaffe.

    But yeah – we may not have the same view on this. ;)

  44. No questions – headlines are created to be memorable, but that is why teaching media literacy is so critical. And with three kids in K-12, I can tell you, the kids do get it – my district is very active in this area, and as you can imagine I am too. You can't imagine the conversations we've been having about Haiti.

  45. Thanks for your pity, Jill. If I am misunderstanding your position please help me understand it. You say Brown is considered anti-science, the implication being that you agree since it is part of the reason you wouldn't vote for him. At the link, the reason he is considered anti-science is because he has doubts about global warming. Is that why you feel he is anti-science?

  46. DING DING DING DING DING. No matter what, this post still isn't about me or what I believe. It is about why I do not support Brown. If you are not persuaded, then you are not persuaded. I fail to understand why you are making this about me. Should I be flattered?

  47. Father Time, I think many voters reason as you do. And while I may not agree with how people come to their decisions, if I can't persuade them, then they won't be persuaded. Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's them. I would say that although I didn't use those words, you are right – my decision to vote for Coakley comes from simply not supporting what Brown would support if in office.

  48. Thanks, Jim – I do think that explains some of it, but some of it for love of provocation so, you know, it's a mixed bag. I do get to the point, and I think we all must get to the point where the etiology of the problem is recognized to only matter to such a point, and then it's all about what are we going to do. Some of the choices we will make about our behavior vis a vis our environment has nothing to do with the etiology of the problems – we can choose to act on those, or not act. While other behaviors may be more based on what you think is causing the problem.

    To not act at all, simply because you haven't yet decided which reasons work for you as to why we're in the situation we're in, is not acceptable to me.

  49. :) I responded above.

  50. Palin-Biden….”He got that the words indicated something other than what he intended and had, in fact, made a gaffe. But yeah – we may not have the same view on this”

    I'm not so sure, Jill. They both have the same approach to putting out information. As you say, they may have different reactions when the “hit-n-run” media calls something a gaffe. However, they appear to originally want to put at least some measure of truth out there in the beginning. Once the talking heads of the RNC and DNC call them up and chastise them, they have to retract somehow. They point that I made is that they begin with truth and (wrongly) backpeddle when it doesn't suit the parties.

  51. That's awesome that your district is addressing media bias. I'm not aware of any inititatives like that in my district (about 300 miles away from yours). I have done the same thing at home with my three kids. I'm trying my best to get them to the point to not believe everything they hear, and to back up all info with their own research and questions – not only with news and media, but also with those that misspeak the Bible.

  52. ” There is no such thing as partial birth abortion, it's either an Intact dilation and extraction (IDX), also known as intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction (D&X, or DNX), intrauterine cranial decompression B) It's none of your business, nor mine how other people plan their family “

    This is the typical liberal approach to this subject. Take a vile and evil procedure and put it into less vile and evil terms.

    1. It's not murder of a baby. It's abortion of a fetus.
    2. It's not obliterating a human brain and sucking vacuuming it out, it's “intact dilation and evacuation”
    3. It's not crushing a baby's skull, it's “intrauterine cranial decompression”.

    And you may be right about it being none of my business. Nor does it directly effect my life when a mother drowns her three children, or when a baby is left in a dumpster.

    If you do not want children, that is fine.
    If you do not want children DON'T HAVE SEX!

    Don't rely on murdering a life to erase your lack of self-control.

  53. Well – yeah – I mean, we're not going to go to a good place on this I think. :) And I don't know if it's worth debating it.

    My main problem with Palin and truth is that she has so many knowledge gaps that she doesn't admit to and then she winds up says things that to me sound absolutely kookie. And when she does admit that she doesn't know something, she works to blame having been asked about something that she doesn't know – like by calling it a gotcha moment or getting all sarcastic and saying “I'll get back to ya on that!” – like she's resentful that she was asked something she couldn't answer.

    I was on a radio show a couple of weeks ago and was asked something and I had to say, I plead ignorance on that – because I didn't know. Making stuff up is the worst thing you can do when you are on the record – you will be found out, you just will.

    I guess I find Biden a far more convincing straight shooter than Palin – I find Palin to be someone who wants to be seen that way, but I have to say that she has failed to get me to see her that way.

  54. If you do not want children, that is fine.
    If you do not want children DON'T HAVE SEX!

    In other words, it'll teach the little sluts not to open their legs…

  55. They point that I made is that they begin with truth and (wrongly) backpeddle when it doesn't suit the parties.

    I have to agree with Ji…, er I mean she who shall not be named, on this one.

    While both Biden and Palin commit gaffes, Biden generally knows a good bit on the topics and his gaffes come from speaking without thinking, or not parroting the party line. He does start with what he considers to be true. He's like the goofy uncle who says what he really thinks about things but there's no reason to doubt his sincerity.

    Palin's gaffes on the other hand stem from a lack of knowledge or forethought, then trying to bluff her way through an answer. It's tough to say she starts with the truth since hasn't seemed to formulate an opinion until the question is asked, then tries to come up with something that sounds reasonable. She is not smart enough to admit when she doesn't know something.

  56. Hell…freezing…over? :)

  57. Hmmm. Reverse sexism (PC hypocrisy) certainly is not a fine Ethical Example to follow with the ballot box. Voting robotically Democratic as a desperation measure is understandable. It needn't even be admitted how desperate one may feel; just call it “playing defense.” It's understood, Jill.

    * * *

    “Don't rely on murdering a life to erase your lack of self-control.”

    Harsh, but obviously superior to the mess (logical, moral, behavior) from the other side.

  58. “He is anti-choice” [sic]

    CORRECTION: Anti-abortion

  59. “More proof that negative campaigning works I guess. And questioning global warming is now 'anti-science'?”

    The second example is an outright lie revealing also the puritanical fundamentalist religious nature of the current environmental movement (related to “climate change” at least, or especially).

    The first (vote for a woman because she is so, and voting for the male opponent is “anti-woman” [sic]) typical PC deliberate-discriminatory hypocrisy.

    But it may also reveal concern, desperation, even panic, too. (Hysteria?)

  60. DLS – you are entitled to your spin and I'm not disagreeing that some people spin a vote for Coakley the way you do. But the reality is, I would have voted for Coakley just after the primary the same as I would now. There's nothing desperate or defensive about it. It's just my choice. And again – I don't live there so how relevant is it even in the end?

  61. Well I'm not perfect either.

    I would like to be able to just “vote for the candidate” and not the party. I think that would be nice, but the parties are so polarized that it is indicative of philosophies so diverse there is little common ground. The vast majority of what I believe falls within the Democrat agenda. Certainly not the republican agenda. Republicans hold back education then call people stupid. They want a massive military but they don’t want to police the corruption and graft. They want to deregulate business to the point of criminal behavior. It is stunning how the rest of the developed world’s standard of living is raising against ours falling. They demand responsibility from our less fortunate people, then produce overpriced automobiles that pollute and overpriced homes that the cost of which overburden people’s ability to repay on the basis of demand……then blast everybody with sophisticated add campaigns that tell people they can afford it! Religion in schools that mock science without any facts. Friggen Capitalist healthcare where you trade your home that you worked all your life for a surgical procedure! Ect., ect..

    Many modern nations on this planet have already solved many of these problems for their people. These republicans don’t even care about our people, so no wonder they don’t want to actually solve any problems. They just want to allow their business crook puppet masters to glean away what little people have left. Then tell the poor people’s kids enduring Iraq and Afghanistan what a wonderful job they are doing and pin a 40 cent medal on their chest.

    Sorry…end of rant….but I could go on for days. Thank the stars that Marc Pascal has the endurance to say it for me from time to time.

  62. I'm not spinning, Jill.  On the other hand, I frequently debunk _real_ “spin” on this site when it's suitable.

    “I would have voted for Coakley just after the primary the same as I would now.”

    I'm certain of it.  It doesn't matter how far left she is or even how partisan Dem you are in defense of lefties anywhere at any time, or now, with sclerotic-by-activist-standards health care “reform” currently in intensive care.  There's also the consideration (stereotyped on this thread) that you dislike Republicans.

    “I don't live there so how relevant is it even in the end?”

    How relevent is it to you? You went to the trouble not merely of commenting on a thread about this election, but in fact you created this thead (involving your trademark on this site, the far-left feminist theme, no less, so you certainly find that to be relevent!).

    “Yes, I would vote for her if I was eligible to vote in Massachusetts.  And yes, I do expect she will win.”

  63. Still putting “reform” in mock quotes I see.

    I guess this is a site where you can use the word REPUBLI*CONS* and fit right in. Disappointing.

  64. I smell an interest in mere provocation on your part and that disappointments me: I subscribe to the “no such thing as a bad person or a good person – there are only people who make bad decisions.” I have expectations, as a voter, for the kind of person and the kind of philosophies and the kind of priorities the people I vote for possess. That people with a “D” near their name align better with those expectations more often those with an R is a matter of observation and fact, not because I “dislike” Republicans.

    I put my name and face out here – have been for more than five years. Unless you know me, I would caution you and others away from labeling and name-calling unless you don't me being discredited.

    To throw around such accusations that have no basis in reality is abusive of the trust people like myself depend upon in order to dialogue with those who remain anonymous. IMO, it weakens the engagement that a place like TMV tries to foster.

  65. Wow – yes – that is exactly how I tend to see things too. Thanks for ranting. :)

  66. Clearly you feel put upon – but you are the person reading this post. One of the top rules of blog reading is knowing that you can click away and roll your eyes and forget about what you've read. I don't get paid a dime for these posts – what would my motivation be? I posted it at my personal blog, which gets less than 200 hits a day, and at BlogHer where it's on a tertiary page that few people will ever see. I posted it here because there hadn't been anything like it.

    Obviously it provoked thought and dialogue. Last I checked, that's what blogs do. It doesn't have anything to do with how relevant what I have to say is to the reality – it has to do with the fact I had something to say at all and there are places that let me say it. Those two things are completely independent.

  67. Last but not least – you show how little you know about the so-called feminist theme, DLS – I'm dramatically conservative when it comes to that. And if you immersed yourself in just what constitutes the feminist theme these days, you'd know that. It's almost embarrassing for me at times because I sound so conservative compared to real feminists.

  68. “I smell an interest in mere provocation on your part and that disappointments me”

    The interest is not there.

    “To throw around such accusations that have no basis in reality”

    I don't do this.

    “Clearly you feel put upon”

    My tone might have led you to guess that, but it's not so.

    “… Last but not least”

    (Who feels put upon, incidentally?)

    “you show how little you know about the so-called feminist theme”

    I've not demonstrated this at all. I've responded to its being used or applied handily or conveniently, again, though. (This isn't the first time; it's a part of a habit, pattern, or routine.)

  69. Enter the crickets. Maybe we'll do better on another thread.

  70. “Still putting 'reform' in mock quotes[,] I see.”

    Mock quotes, indeed, if your vision or other functions are defective.

  71. “Enter the crickets. Maybe we'll do better on another thread.”

    Not here, obviously. (See above.) But if you prefer –

    As to something you wrote earlier, I betrayed no trust — I was responding to what you wrote to start this thread, which includes a number of statements related to one of your favored political themes (which, in fact, is often the basis for your starting new threads on this site). It's that simple.

    As to Coakley, she's a tainted candidate, but if you can't stand the Republican (I actually don't mind him, but one photo I saw of him reminded me of Romney or the equivalent of one or two “blueprint” or “out of the mold” GOP equivalent of Dem politicians like Warner (Virginia).

    http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=About

    I'm also curious about the effect on the voters of the flirting among Dems in Washington to tax makers of medical devices. (Taxing those involved in “production” of medicine is anti-medicine!) This specific object, device makers, affects a rare modern, high-tech, niche industry in Massachusetts.

    This, accompanying the general problem of the Dems wanting government to do far too much, is what we're seeing now. (I don't view this as “1994″ nor see a guaranteed GOP revival out of this; I'll believe that when I see that.) Also of note are the swarming over this story by major parties nation-wide and related political interests (as on here, this site); I've written elsewhere that it reminds me of the race in Upstate New York. But mainly it also is indicative of discontent nation-wide, and I have to chuckle: This Republican running against Coakley and the Dem agenda to date, for Ted Kennedy's seat in, of all places, Massachusetts, and surprising everyone, actually is treating us to — unlike last year — real, actual Hope [tm] for real, actual Change [tm].

  72. If Martha wins, you will all be very sorry. I use to work for her, and she is the worst person I have ever met. Good luck to you if she wins.

  73. The worst person you have ever met. You might want to say more you know.

  74. Scott Brown HATES rape victims? Really that's the kind of crap you listen too? Where did HE say HE hates rape victims. Let alone the fact that most rape victims are consenting at first then regret their decisions later.

    Liberals will stop at nothing.

    Why did Martha spend NO time talking about the TOPICS of a debate? She only spent time and money slandering her opponent. I want to know their stand point.

    She is just another elitist, socialit, pig, of a person. Nothing more.

Submit a Comment