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.

         

Share This Post On

75 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. ” 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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…

  5. 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.

  6. Hell…freezing…over? :)

  7. 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.

  8. “He is anti-choice” [sic]

    CORRECTION: Anti-abortion

  9. “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?)

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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.”

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. “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.)

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

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

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

  21. “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].

  22. 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.

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

  24. 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