The Massachusetts Nail-Biter

The Boston Globe’s Adrian Walker has an interesting take on how Martha Coakley came to find herself in this spot three days before an election that everyone expected to be a blowout. And the NYT looks at the implications for the health care bill. We are once again hearing talk of using the reconciliation process in the Senate.

UPDATE: The Globe also suggests six things to watch.

Related Topics: martha coakley, massachusetts senate race, scott brown, ted kennedy, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • rustyreturns

    “Understand that I am not hosting a Coakley pity party here. First of all, she may well win. Still, if she doesn’t win, after entering with every conceivable advantage, her defeat will be well-earned.”

    .
    .
    Either Ms Walker is naive, or she believes that readers of the Boston Globe are stupid. I am not quite sure which one it is. Do you feel this statement is sort of odd Karen? . This is a full on endorsement of Martha Coakley. Now I know the Globe is at the heart of liberal Democrat politics, and that they are surely fully backing and endorsing Coakley as the candidate all “good Democrats” should vote for, but wow. Why hide the truth? .
    .

    ”They got tired of hearing that it was “Ted Kennedy’s seat.’’ (Best line of the campaign, by Brown: “It isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat, it belongs to the people of Massachusetts.’’

    .
    This is perhaps not only the “best line of the campaign”, it is the best line since “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator you are no Jack Kennedy.”
    .
    And finally this:
    .

    ” She is suddenly being savaged – especially in the national media – as mediocre, which she certainly is not. (That would be Scott Brown.)”.

    .
    Now how does this statement make any sense what-so-ever? If Scott Brown makes a statement like “It isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat, it belongs to the people of Massachusetts”. One would think not only it is a brilliant come back to a stupid commentator’s question. But, if you watched the debate or any video, the confidence and guts he showed delivering this statement was inspiring to say the least.
    .
    Perhaps Ms Walker is young, and has not covered many campaigns. But, Scott Brown’s position at this time is nothing short of a miracle. The Coakley campaign can go down in history as the primer for those learning how NOT to run a campaign. Plain and simple.

  • jnb987

    Perhaps Rusty doesn’t realize that “Ms Walker” is a man. Adrian is a male name, Adrienne is the female variant.
    .
    http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=Adrian+Walker&camp=localsearch:on:byline:art

  • hellslittlestangel

    Wake me when this “nail-biter” is over so I can watch Coakley being sworn in.

  • rustyreturns

    Oh, sorry jnb987. But, I appreciate the link identifying Mr Walker.
    .
    However I also found this too…not that it really means anything or is really that big of a deal.
    .

    “The girl’s name Adrian \a-drian, ad-rian\, also used as boy’s name Adrian, is a variant of Adrienne (Latin), and the meaning of Adrian is “from Hadria”. See also Hadria.”

    .
    Just something I figured since you took the time to clarify my comment, you would equally appreciate.
    .
    http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Adrian

  • rustyreturns

    It’s over hells. I just declared Brown the victor, and Democrats can now cry their eyes out!!

  • juniusredivivus

    Given that Rusty is always wrong, and her predictions are consistently deluded, I now feel complete certainty that Coakley will win. Coakley by 9%, and Rusty weeping as she tries to spin the numbers.

  • 3xfire3

    Even if Coakley wins, this very close race will only show how disappointed Americans are with the current direction of the Democratic Party.
    This is not the Democratic Party of my parents. It has moved way too far to the left and my parents, if they were alive today, would be voting Republican for the first time in their lives.

  • rustyreturns

    Yes juni, I am “always wrong”. You just keep on believing it too. Thanks.

  • Cliff

    Are you also a woman? Because I thought you were this fat white dude from Pennsylvania.

  • rustyreturns

    Ahh, little cliffy speaks. How cute. Go play now cliffy, the rest of the 3rd gradrs are waiting on you. Let the adults alone now.
    .
    Like you mother says “now cliffy, children should be seen and not heard”.

  • hellslittlestangel

    Yeah, right, even if Coakley wins, it will just go to show how awful the Democrats are. I love all this pre-game analysis — so much easier than boring old reality.

  • Cliff

    I’ll mark you down as “hermaphrodite,” then.

  • spob

    KT, I gotta blast you here. That “interesting take” is sophomoric shilling for Coakley masquerading as serious commentary.
    .
    First of all, when you’re a “good prosecutor”, people don’t get Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on a prosecution that you were involved with (I get that she came into it in medias res). The Amirault injustice (which continues to this day by the way with nary a mention by the MSM of Coakley’s hand in it) and some of the other issues with her (apparently lenient treatment of a cop accused of sexual assault on a toddler and a questionable prosecution in the Souza case). Side question, I wonder what Obama and Holder, who have come down strongly on criminal justice issues, would say about some of the questionable prosecutions of Ms. Coakley. Walker isn’t yet in Anne Applebaum territory (for her shilling for Roman Polanski), but he’s close. What’s next, is he going to say that Eric Holder is of the highest ethical vintage? Good prosecutor? Good grief. And Walker is finding it hard not to feel sorry for her? He should save his sympathy for the Amiraults.
    .
    Second of all, his “this is about the voters” is at once trite, true and supremely besides the point. All elections are “about the voters”, that’s democracy. What he’s getting at is that the voters are restive–we’re a year into this Obama thing and things ain’t so hot. So what does this woman do–act like she is entitled to the seat. She takes time off (then yaps about working 24/7); she is reluctant to debate; she eschews retail politics and she runs a cynical campaign (sorry, when you book to DC to fundraise with lobbyists, ya cannot then accuse your opponent of being in bed with Wall Street). That’s bad in any environment, and supremely dumb in this one. Walker’s attempt to shift the blame to circumstances beyond Coakley’s control discounts the fact that Coakley has, with her actions, poked a finger in the eye of the electorate.
    .
    Third of all, he says Coakley is not mediocre. Is he kidding? All you have to do is look at her quotes. She showed a painful failure to understand what’s going on in Afghanistan. She listed visting her sister in London as foreign policy experience, which is about as silly as Palin’s statement that she could see Russia from her house (except that Palin didn’t say that). She actually said that the religious need not apply to emergency room jobs–sorry, guys, only a lightweight upstairs says dumb things like that.
    .
    Lastly, the attempt to insinuate that a contributory cause of her problems is her sex. Even if she is the victim of double standards for women, too bad. Remember, this is a person who, with zero evidence, decided to make an example of Gerald Amirault (as opposed to his female “accomplices”) because of her stereotypical view that men in such cases control the women. That’s often true, of course, but to stack that onto a non-existent case is Orwellian. But the reality is that Coakley’s sex probably has very little to do with the situation she’s in. She’s a lousy candidate and an execrable person.
    .
    And once again, I still don’t understand how any liberals can justify their support for Coakley. Gerald Amirault still has to live his life under the conditions of his parole. This is an injustice, and Martha Coakley calls the evidence against him “formidable”. This woman shouldn’t be acceptable in polite company.

  • spob

    Coakley is awful, and given her actions in the Amirault case, so are you if you support her.

  • juniusredivivus

    Cliff, I don’t think the trolls understand long “furrin” words like hermaphrodite. But your response was superb.

  • carotexas1

    Karen I am trying to think positive that the voters of Massachusetts have commonsense to choose the one that will help pass health care, than one that will look and talk good and just say no.

  • juniusredivivus

    Spob supports a pedophile rapist, who abused his victims while wearing a clown suit. Birds of a feather, indeed.

  • hellslittlestangel

    You know, if Swampland would ban poo-flinging, these threads might be as interesting to read as they used to be.

  • hellslittlestangel

    Or maybe they’d just be empty.

  • spob

    Yeah, caro, passing health care washes away the sins of an evil prosecutor. Please don’t lecture us any more about your supposed moral high ground. You’ve lost it here.

  • spob

    junius, no one thinks that Amirault did any of that–that you’d make a joke about it says a lot more about you than it does about me.

  • spob

    The I assume, hells, that you are going to criticize junius.

  • spob

    And hey, if Coakley loses this Senate thing, she can always persecute soldiers fighting for their country:
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011503868.html

  • spob

    Notice how none of the libs can come out and say it:
    “Despite what Coakley did in the Amirault case, I don’t care, I just want a Dem to win.” Come on guys, we all know it’s true–just admit it.

  • juniusredivivus

    That’s alright, I long ago added pedophilia to the list of GOP traditions and values. You are just defending your homies, spob, and I understand why you need to do so.

  • apollyon07

    hahaha, man I thought EVERYONE knew that Amirault was innocent. Come on, there’s no way you can review that case and think that he actually did it. He served 18 years for a crime that he clearly did not do, and Coakley lobbied aggressively to keep him in. What she did was wrong, just admit it.

  • juniusredivivus

    Apollyon, I do hope you aren’t joining the Spob For Pedophiles bandwagon. The Amirault case was far from obvious, and to this day plenty of people think he did it. None of the accusers ever retracted, and no new evidence has emerged.

  • anon76

    Spob, you’ve never found a nice thing to say about a Democrat. As far as I can tell from your postings, Coakley is equally evil to Holder, who is equally evil to Obama, who is equally evil (and incompetent) to Sotomayor, who is equally evil to all the various czars and other appointments Obama has made. Honestly, if we were to take you seriously on all your posts regarding the character flaws of Democrats (and believe me, we don’t), we’d have to think that each one of them was an instantiation of the antichrist. And yet here you are chiding democratic voters for not wanting to engage on a discussion of the supposed flaws of yet another Dem. If the time ever comes that you engage in good-faith discussions about the positives and negatives of candidates (R or D), then maybe you’ll get some responses to your queries. Until then, to hear you lambasting Democratic voters for wanting to get a Democrat elected is an even higher level of hypocrisy than we’re used to seeing from you. I suppose that your spare time is spent supporting the teapot’s ongoing smear campaign regarding the kettle’s blackness?

  • mikew67

    Wait, I thought Caroline Kennedy had dibs… ;^)
    — cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

  • wevern345

    This election is about one thing only, Health care reform. Massachusetts has already accomplished health care reform, including a subsidized program, and there are just enough voters that believe the lies and misrepresentations to swing the vote to Brown. It is about ignorance and fear, just like all the republican campaigns. If you can convince enough of the low level information crowd to be afraid they are going to lose something then…

    Pathetic!

  • juniusredivivus

    First of all, when you’re a “good prosecutor”, people don’t get Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on a prosecution that you were involved with (I get that she came into it in medias res). The Amirault injustice (which continues to this day by the way with nary a mention by the MSM of Coakley’s hand in it)

    So no-one mentions Coakley and this case in the MSM, while miraculously a Pulitzer appears out of nowhere for reporting about.. Coakley and this case? Even by your bizarre standards, this is the mother of all self-contradictions1

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    Would that “ignorance and fear” extend to the notion that Brown is going to sell out the voters to the big bad bankers and traders on Wall Street? That he will vote to deny health care to the sick and needy? Come on, are you serious?

  • spob

    Wow, junius, you are an idiot. The Pulitzer Prize was years ago, and right now there is hardly a peep from the MSM about it. Funny that.
    .
    I know you know I am right.

  • spob

    Anon: that’s a nice bit of ad hominem. But I didn’t think that liberals and Dems liked overzealous prosecutors that lobby to keep unjust convictions intact. And like I said, I wonder what Obama thinks of this conviction. Barack Obama got all worked up about six black kids sucker punching and knocking out a kid and then stomping him while he was on the ground prostrate who then, quelle surprise, got charged with attempted murder. So obviously an unjust conviction must be worse on Obama’s hierarchy of outrage.
    .
    As for Holder, guys, when you recommend the release of terrorists (i.e., the FALN terrorists) to give cover to your political buds, recommend clemency for a fugitive and play racial favorites with voter intimidation (the Black Panthers case), scum pretty much sums up who you are, Dem or GOP. As for Sotomayor, well, I haven’t sat down on a federal bench for 17 years, but I know enough to read Ginsburg’s dissent as not taking a position on whether it would have affirmed the Second Circuit in Ricci.
    .
    As for Obama, well, if you cannot say something nice . . ..

  • bobell

    It’s a universal law (bobell’s law, anyone?) that nothing is as good as it used to be. (Don’t be fooled by all those electronic gizmos. Privacy ain’t as good as it used to be.) This law has particular application to the likes of Usenet newsgroups, listservs, blog comments, and the like, which inevitably degenerate almost linearly as time passes. Why should this place be, uniquely, an exception?

  • apollyon07

    junius, I’m not for pedofiles, so therefore it’s okay for me to defend Amirault and fault Coakley for this travesty of justice. You think that courts don’t make mistakes? You don’t think that ambitious future politicians do things like this? Everybody and their dog who objectively looks at that case can tell he did not do it. No new evidence emerged? No kidding, because there was no good evidence in THE FIRST PLACE. The only “evidence” in this case was the testimony of young children, most of whom at first did not accuse him of anything, but, *surprise*, after hours and hours of grueling interviews by psychologists, they started to change their tune. And, amazingly, NO physical evidence of abuse was found on the children. One claim said that a kid was sodomized with a knife. Yet there were no signs of physical damage. Maybe they were in the Twilight Zone!
    .
    How about the fact that Coakley worked to keep an innocent man behind bars, despite a UNANIMOUS vote in his favor from the state parole board?
    .
    Do you think that because a court or jury says it, that makes it true? I mean, I think that OJ clearly cut off his wife’s head, but hell, an ignorant jury said he didn’t so he must not have!
    .
    What Coakley did is, to me, beyond redemption. Aggressively trying to keep an innocent man in prison isn’t just wrong- it’s tyranny. If you really believe that there is a good chance that Amirault did all those horrible things he was accused of, please tell me why, I would like to know.

  • spob

    Apollyon–junius doesn’t really believe that Amirault did anything. Heck, he probably thinks that Mumia is innocent. It’s just a talking point to cover for his politics. Coakley is a D, and therefore no matter what she’s done, she’s superior to the guy who is an R. It’s pathetic.

  • freeinpa

    rusty:

    You need to play nice with the arrogant know-it-alls. They have gotten very testy over the past year as the coronation of their king is over and they have discovered that the American people have figured out their lies and basically discovered that they are full of crap.

    Now they are worried that the bluest seat in the bluest state may be won by a republican. So much so Ed Schultz and Thrill up my leg Matthews are openly telling people the need to cheat and buy votes.

    Imagine 10 months ago they pronounced the republicans dead and gave advice how the party should be more like them.

    I guess it goes to show you they still aren’t nearly as smart as they keep telling us they are.

  • spob

    Well, libs, can you do any better than this? All you have is “spob is a friendly to pedophiles” and “spob always criticizes Dems”. Whatever guys. I know you guys all think I am a trogolodyte, but you cant beat me. I’ve cleaned your collective clocks on the AIG tax, Sotomayor, Obama’s racial attitudes, a few other things and now this.

  • anon76

    Where exactly did I attack you in order to deserve the ad hominem? Victimhood is not a very effective strategy when people aren’t actually attacking you.
    And I wasn’t asking for your explanation of why you dislike specific Democrats- I was pointing out that all you ever do is attack the personal characteristics of any Democrat that is being discussed. It is therefore quite easy to dismiss your questioning of Coakley in the Amirault case as just another case of your anti-Dem leanings. Why should we spend our time following your links here in light of your well-established history?
    Just advancing a counter theory to your “I don’t care, I just want a Dem to win” hypothesis on why folks aren’t biting. Do with it what you will.

  • grollican

    Spob, have you reverted to self-pity and victimhood again? Tsk tsk.

  • spob

    Nice try grollican. I’ve whipped your collective fannies. Take your beating like a man. You know that supporting Coakley is indefensible for a true liberal, but you just can’t admit it.
    .
    Dude, you guys are all about victory. That’s cool. Just lay off the lecturing. Everyone knows you have no principles.

  • spob

    anon, ad hominem is not a synonym for “insulted” or “attacked” (which makes your statement that I am playing the victim abjectly silly). Rather it is a logical fallacy which focuses on the characteristics of the speaker. Spob doesn’t like dems is an ad hominem argument.
    .
    Now that we’ve gotten that little education out of the way, we can move on to bigger and better things. Your candidate sucks, and in a decent political landscape, she’d be shunned. But you guys would rather win with inhuman scum like her than have principles. That’s cool. But remember that this is the same thing that gets you guys so-called progressives in Congress voting to use the coercive power of the government to get all of us to fork over money to insurance companies.

  • sacredh

    I’m still wondering how this declaring victory thing works. Does it have a parallel in real life?

  • grollican

    Spob, you’ve never managed a coherent post, much less an argument. You’ve spent years being ridiculed and despised by real Americans, and you haven’t figured out why. I think we all know that you are simply a more than usually inept troll, bought and paid for by some sleazy right-wing kookery, who got sacked, and still posts here because, like a dog chasing a car, you can’t bear to admit that it’s over.

  • freeinpa

    Ask 53. He decides his opinions are facgts. Uses them to support an argument then throws up his hands calls everyone a name and declares victory.

    But I may be making a huge assumption about that reality thing since he only has a passing acquaintance with it.

  • 3xfire3

    Being the totally unbiased person that I am, I have scored spob 7 grollican 3.
    Looks like spob won again.

  • juniusredivivus

    So now we know that it takes spob 11 hours to log out and log in again as 3xfire3. What a maroon! No wonder spob gets crushed on here every day.

  • spob

    Oh give it up junius. We all know that all your moral posturing is just that. So long as it’s a win for your side, you don’t care. Hey, don’t worry, it’s all good, but try to keep the schoolmarm lib moralizing to a dull roar. If there’s one thing that one would think that libs would frown upon, it’s bogus convictions. But I guess they are, in reality, pretty low on the outrage meter for you guys. I guess Gerald Amirault isn;t as sexy as Mumia or the Jena Six.

blog comments powered by Disqus