Campaign Crawlers
The Scott Brown Surge
Liberals are running scared that a Republican might take Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.
Sometime last week, the breathless e-mails started. The urgent pleas to work the phone bank at Democratic National Committee headquarters. The desperate cries for donations. The stern warnings that any day now the sky just might fall.
Here’s a representative missive from MoveOn.org: “In 11 days, we could lose progressive hero Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat — and with it, any hope for passing major progressive legislation this year.” The subject line asked incredulously, “A Republican in Ted Kennedy’s seat?”
The idea seems absurd even by Chicken Little standards of mass fundraising appeals. Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the nation. Republicans hold about a tenth of the state legislative seats and represent only a slightly larger percentage of the commonwealth’s registered voters. Barack Obama won Massachusetts — the only state to vote for George McGovern in 1972 — by 26 points.
Massachusetts has no GOP statewide elected officials and hasn’t sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Edward Brooke was last re-elected in 1972. The late, sainted Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat doesn’t seem like an auspicious opportunity to reverse that trend.
National Democrats are nevertheless a little worried about the Jan. 19 special election to fill out the remainder of Kennedy’s term. Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley cruised to a primary win based on her high name recognition and hoped to run out the clock on the way to the general. But that frontrunner strategy seems to have backfired as Republican state Sen. Scott Brown has gained momentum among independents — now a plurality of Bay State registered voters — who are angry at the way the Democrats have been running both Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill.
With the Democratic base less than fully engaged, Republicans on fire, and independents unhappy with a mostly Democratic status quo, the race may have become surprisingly competitive. First, the evidence was anecdotal. Driving through the Greater Boston suburbs over Christmas, one could spot Brown signs among the glow-in-the-dark reindeer and snowmen dotting many a lawn. The closer to Brown’s senate district you got, the more his signs began to predominate — something you almost never saw with the the sacrificial lambs the GOP has run for Senate in recent cycles.
Then came two successive polling bombshells: Rasmussen released a poll that showed Brown within nine points of Coakley, trailing just 41 percent to 50 percent. Later, Public Policy Polling — a Democratic firm — showed the race a statistical dead heat, with Brown actually leading 48 percent to 47 percent. Soon, my inbox runneth over.
Even the Boston Globe survey — which doesn’t use the controversial automated polling methodology of the other two polls but does at least arguably oversample Democrats — showing Coakley clinging to a 15-point lead over Brown found the two candidates tied among the people most enthusiastic about the race. Special elections figure to be low-turnout and are notoriously hard to poll because it is difficult to know what the electorate will look like.
Unlike the recent GOP recruits for Senate in Massachusetts, Brown has a track record of winning elections. He won his first as assessor in the little Republican-leaning town of Wrentham in 1992, going on to serve on the Wrentham board of selectmen before begin elected state representative in 1998. Brown won his state senate seat in a special election in March 2004, replacing liberal Democrat Cheryl Jacques, and managed to win a full term as state senator even as native son John Kerry was carrying the state in that November’s presidential election.
In 2006, Brown further secured his hold on the seat by running for re-election unopposed — a rarity among Republicans in Massachusetts. While Obama fever was sweeping the commonwealth in 2008, Brown managed another term with 59 percent of the vote. A good-looking (he once posed as a centerfold in Cosmopolitan magazine after winning its “America’s Sexiest Man” contest) and articulate candidate, Brown is one of the Massachusetts GOP’s few success stories in the past six years.
Even so, few observers gave Brown much of a chance to win Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat when he announced he was going to run. By Massachusetts standards, he is a fairly conservative candidate. Although pro-choice, Brown opposes partial-birth abortion and favors other abortion restrictions. He has promised to be a 41st vote against the Democratic health care bill, considered a major part of Kennedy’s legacy. Brown is against same-sex marriage, for Obama’s decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, and a supporter of the Iraq war — the last two unpopular stances, but ones where Brown has some credibility as a 30-year veteran of the National Guard and lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps.
Brown has once again proved to be a clever campaigner. Handling the Kennedy legacy issue gingerly, he has run ads touting John F. Kennedy’s support for tax cuts. Brown has alternated between reaching out to Massachusetts’ beleaguered conservatives by hammering away at Coakley’s liberalism and also reassuring jittery moderates that he won’t automatically be “a filibuster senator.” Liberals aren’t buying his promises of moderation, however: they are already talking about delaying Brown’s certification should he win to keep him from blocking health care.
Contrasted with Coakley’s pedestrian campaign, it’s easy to see why Democrats and liberal activists are worried. But for a Republican to win in Massachusetts, even in a special election, everything has to break the right way. When Republicans won four consecutive gubernatorial races between Bill Weld’s election in 1990 and Mitt Romney’s victory in 2002, the GOP took nearly two-thirds of independents, 90 percent of Republicans, and a significant slice of Democrats. Only during Weld’s 1994 re-election did that translate into anything better than the low 50s.
Republicans who have run strong in some polls only to come up short on election day are more common. Ray Shamie against John Kerry in 1984, Jim Rappaport against Kerry in 1990, Romney against Kennedy in 1994, Weld against Kerry in 1996, Dan Grabauskas against Tim Cahill in 2002, Jim Ogonowski against Niki Tsongas in 2007: these are all cases where the Massachusetts GOP was able to break 40 percent but not able to clinch the win. All but the last two were Senate races.
Now Brown is also missing the element of surprise. Democrats were always unlikely to look past a candidate of his caliber. Polls showing him possibly competitive make this doubly unlikely — the statement accompanying the PPP survey was practically written as a wake-up call for Democratic get-out-the vote organizers.
Liberals are nevertheless right to feel nervous. If Brown won, it would actually be as damaging to their agenda as MoveOn.org’s fundraisers fear. Even if he runs well but ultimately loses, the popularity of the Obama agenda — already in question after the 2009 off-year elections — will have been tested even in the bluest of states.
A strong showing could also set Scott Brown up for a future run for statewide office, following the Romney precedent. After all, Deval Patrick isn’t looking too good and if Coakley wins the state will need a new attorney general.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Darin| 1.12.10 @ 6:56AM
Given the known tactics of groups like ACORN, don't count on it happening. As a reference, look at Minnesota.
And even if it does, don't look for the state legislature to validate the election before the health care bill vote.
RAMIII| 1.12.10 @ 1:39PM
Agreed.
Appleby| 1.12.10 @ 7:10AM
It would be even better if ACORN and the Friends of Teddy visibly mess with the election results -- that would prove not only that they are in fact the rascals that ought to be thrown out, but would assist in getting ACORN convicted of some of the egregious things it has already been indicted for doing.
Roy| 1.12.10 @ 8:02AM
"Clinging to a 15 point lead"?
L. Ross| 1.12.10 @ 11:42AM
I had the exact same thought.
nanjo| 1.12.10 @ 1:23PM
in mass.... that IS amazing!!!
i was expecting a cakewalk for ANY dem, not just for a well known and well liked Martha.
Sog| 1.12.10 @ 1:26PM
Yes clinging because the next line explains that "among those most engergized" (translation=those likely to vote) it was a dead heat. It does not matter if 90% are for you if all of the other 10% vote and only 5% percent of your 90% vote you still lose.
Mattled| 1.12.10 @ 8:04AM
Yeah Appleby,
I thought that same thing this morning. But who would cover it? The Minnesotans had no shame in voting for Franken (the ones who did). Somehow 800 votes wasn't enough for a Coleman win, but 400 was enough for a Franken win.
IF there is evidence of ACORN/SEIU fraud----who will cover it? We had a video, an actual video with audio of people being kept away from polls by Black Panthers. Our Black Panther AG and the Black Panther prez (Odingo) threw the case out.
I fear the only hope we have left is if someone gets sick.
Bik Zippo| 1.13.10 @ 2:37PM
For the record, Al won by the margin of 400 over Coleman! Secondly, most of us voted for Franken because Coleman had not done 1 thing for the people of Minnesota. After the way the "Scummy" Gop'ers acted when they were here, I can guarantee Pawlenty will never get re-elected. Lastly and most importantly remember all those incidents of police brutality just to "protect" a bunch of whiny, old, let's not forget stupid *they did invite Palin, do ya? Well indictments are getting handed down next month. So excited!
JP| 1.12.10 @ 8:33AM
This is an oppurtunity to show that the GOP can be flexiable. We shouldn't expect that Brown will be an Ashcroft, or Jessie Helms; however, if he can consistently support libertarian, federalist positions concerning budgets, economics, regulations, and defence his win could be a huge coup for the GOP. But make not mistake, there is no way he will be conservative on the social issues. The best we can hope for is libertarian positions from him. From a judicial pont of view, if he can support Alito or Roberts fine; but, don't expect him to go to bat for a Scalia or Thomas type of candidate.
Truth to Power| 1.12.10 @ 8:40AM
Good take as usual.
nanjo| 1.12.10 @ 1:26PM
i dream of that day, when one of these two horrible parties will rule by the constitution and use federalist papers to interpret the constitution.... oh well, i just woke up. it ain't happening.
do we need so much govt in our lives?
MOSwas71331| 1.13.10 @ 9:53AM
Don't forget Brown is a JAG officer, a lawyer in uniform. Surely he's familiar with the US Constitution and would support literalists similar to Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
Steve S.| 1.12.10 @ 9:34AM
The 15 point poll was taken BEFORE the poll that had Brown 1 point ahead. It is clear that momentum and name recognition are surging on Brown's side. Coakley is a desperate candidate who thought she could just coast to victory without debate and one who aids terrorists by having them tried in US courts.....Dems have had control of the state for a long time, but when one party is in control too much, you have corruption. Vote Scott Brown.
LoafinPJs| 1.12.10 @ 10:24AM
Sent my contribution from TX. Urge your friends and family to do the same.
Son of Taz| 1.12.10 @ 7:34PM
From a constituent of Scott, my thanks. Scott will make a great Senator.
TheBigOldDog| 1.12.10 @ 10:59AM
This article is a good example of the pessimism that pervades the electorate here. That's why we all throw up our hands every election and stay home. The Left has us so beaten down we don't even fight any more. It's like the old Soviet Union here.
Thank God for Scott Brown. Through him we've regained our will to fight and have made, "The safest seat in the Union" unsafe for the Democrats.
Put away your negativism and pessimism for a week and fire the second shot heard around the world in the place the first was fired.
TennesseeVolunteer| 1.12.10 @ 11:03AM
Here's hoping for Massachusetts to be the state it was over 200 years ago. The Republican leadership did not have the grit and determination to withstand the liberal lefts onslaught of lies and deceit in Minnesota. We need fighters in the conservative movement, not bueracrats or people with the proper decorum that McCain thought he was showing when that older lady in the crowd told him that Obama was a Muslim and she didn't trust him.
We need fighters.
Americarising| 1.12.10 @ 11:33AM
Massachusetts show these democrat politicians true grit, vote for Scott Brown. He will listen to his people. Democrats won't they are telling us what is good for us. They work for us and we need to teach them a lesson, as we did for the Republicans. You work for us, and you need to remember that.
Jonathan Manson| 1.12.10 @ 1:16PM
We don't need another rubber stamp for Harry Reid and Obama. Martha Coakley will be no different than the other 59 drones who serve Obama the Dictator and Reid the Autocrat.
Laura| 1.12.10 @ 1:26PM
If Coakley truly has a 15 point lead to cling to, why are so many left wing crazies hyper ventilating about this election?
Son of Taz| 1.12.10 @ 7:37PM
They worry because the source of the poll was the Boston Glob, a paper on the edge of bankruptcy and a favorite of Mass Moonbats. They know how much that rag lies so yes, they are worried.
Bo Darville| 1.12.10 @ 1:27PM
Thanks for getting my hopes up. Chances are he'll still lose and the Democrats and media will claim this as vindication of Obama's communist agenda.
PTAMominMaryland| 1.12.10 @ 1:33PM
I saw a well-worn bumpersticker once that read "VOTE for FREEDOM". There is this great quote from a speech that Ronald Reagan made in 1960 to a group of GE employees. He said that "Mankind has known but a few moments of freedom in its entire history. Most of those moments have been ours. But this freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Can we honestly say ours is still unimpaired?". In the end, as long as we have our freedom, we can right whatever ills and injustices come along because the ultimate power will rest with the people.
I just was running some numbers from the Jan 4 Rasmussen poll.
What do you think about this?
From the Massachusetts official elections website .... as of 10/15/2008, the breakdown by party of registered voters in Massachusetts looks like this:
36.95% Dem (37%)
11.62% Rep (12%)
50.75% Indep. (51%)
From the Rasmussen Jan 4 poll and their article... it says, about 70% of Dems and Reps went for their respective candidate and 65% of Independents support the Republican State Senator Scott Brown.
That means....
30% of 36.95% = 11.085%
70% of 11.62% = 8.134%
65% of 50.75% = 32.987%
================
52.2% for Scott Brown (R) !! Americans break the 60th vote monopoly and win their freedom.
Shouldn't everyone go to www.brownforussenate.com and vote for freedom, vote against this "health care to nowhere" (Swartzenagger quote last week), and vote to end the "60th vote" monopoly by making a contribution to the Scott Brown for Senate campaign?
Lydia Vann| 1.12.10 @ 1:39PM
America holds her breath to see if Massachusetts citizens will vote their conscience.
mascmen7 | 1.12.10 @ 1:46PM
I sent $20 to Scott Brown even though I live on welfare. USA takes in $2.3 trillion yearly but Pelosi and Dems have spent almost $4 trillion in 2009 which may lead to a dollar collapse forcing you to barter for your food per BVM at Bayside, NY.
Sam Doucette| 1.12.10 @ 1:54PM
This transplanted Massachusetts voter will vote his conscience. Brown's candidacy and strong race has all the makings of a historic upset, kind of like those patriots at Lexington and Concord in 1776 when they upset the world's largest and most professional army (Great Britain) or those Patriots at the Super Bowl in 2002 when they upset the Greatest Show on Turf (St Louis Rams).
crookedwren| 1.12.10 @ 2:24PM
Join the Brown Brigade and Call, Baby, Call.
Sabastian| 1.12.10 @ 2:29PM
From http://biggovernment.com/ Which reproduces the invitation: Coakley bought and paid for by Big Pharma and Health Insurance Companies
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama’s health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night.
Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.
All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.
Lynnrockets | 1.12.10 @ 2:32PM
My favorite part of last night's debate was this...
Coakley to Brown: Why did you sign an amendment that would prevent rape victims from getting abortions at hospital emergency rooms?
Brown to Coakley in response: Umm, umm, umm, I didn't, did I?
Brown to all conservatives: I support Roe v. Wade and will do nothing to overturn it.
Good luck with the right to lifers after that one Brownie boy!
Lynnrockets.com
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.12.10 @ 8:03PM
So, where'd you get the transcript of the debate from? The daily kos, the huffington post, the Boston globe, or maybe, you got it directly, from the Kennedy family itself? I watched the debate last night, and, you are a liar!! And you know this!!
moderateGuy| 1.12.10 @ 3:02PM
"a Kennedy seat"? It is amazing how the Demok-rats and their MSM water boys consider MA to be a company (Demok-rat) state. On tuesday the voters of MA can answer the question: is it?!
Franco| 1.12.10 @ 3:23PM
I liked Martha's assertion last night during the debate:
There are NO terrorists in Afghanistan any more....
Osamas Pajamas| 1.12.10 @ 3:46PM
I continue to see all these oh-woe-is-me references to ACORN and their misc partners-in-crime at every level of government. I have no political connections ---- but surely some TAS readers and writers do ---- and is there or is there not a movement afoot among Republicans to actually DE-FUND these vote-stealing election hijackers?
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 4:01PM
MONEYBOMB! « White Lily At Home links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 4:01PM
| NwoDaily.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.12.10 @ 4:49PM
Well, for what it might be worth, TEAM AMERICA
is calling friends and friends of friends..in MA.
Famous MA saying" If they want a war lets start it here.".....or words to that effect.
GO PATRIOTS!
Derek Leaberry| 1.12.10 @ 5:28PM
Although I still expect a Coakley victory, I wonder if Brown can use Coakley's misspelled MASSACHUSETTES advertisement as a last minute shot of ridicule to fire her way. Ridicule, if not too spiteful, can be useful politically.
Jim S| 1.12.10 @ 6:07PM
Massachusetts, Boston - location of the first Tea Party!! It is time to shake things up again!!! I sent my donation from TX. VOTE for Scott Brown - it is "the people's seat".
A Tea Party Patriot
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.12.10 @ 7:53PM
This is from an article (Paragraph) from National Review today:
"An e-mail from Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) to Democratic supporters warns of Browns “allies in the right wing” who “dream of holding a ‘tea party’ in Kennedy country”—an awkward analogy since the original tea party was held in Boston Harbor."
If they think Kerry can save her now, please DNC, please sent him!! He's just another Liberal Massachusetts' Democratic joke, and he's proved it here yet again. How dare the Republicans try to hold a "Tea Party" in Kennedy Country. Hello John, the original "Boston" Tea Party happened in Boston you dolt!! And then the other thing he said about it being Kennedy Country, makes him sound very out of touch too. John, I didn't know the State was named after the Kennedy's. It's not, and neither is the Senate seat!!
Hey Ken? So you're really starting to warm up to this Brown fellow now, huh? Your the Man with the plan Ken, and I'm glad you're on our side too.
I can't wait for the 19th of January!! Vote Brown!!
Liberty or Death| 1.12.10 @ 7:42PM
This is the moment. No vote could be more important than that of a Massachusetts voter in this upcoming special election.
The history of the United States lies with you Massachusetts.
A vote for Scott Brown does not betray your party. I say to hell with "Teddy's seat." This is a democratic republic, not some oligarchy.
This is the moment for AMERICANS, not party affiliations. Massachusetts, you alone can stop this freight train and save our country from certain disaster. Government is not the solution; it IS the problem.
A vote for Scott Brown does not mean you are against healthcare reform. We all want reform, but smart reform, done right. The current legislation, being hammered out in secret, is not about healthcare at all. It is about more government control of our lives, and more government largess.
A vote for Scott Brown will save the Union from Deathcare.
The current legislation is death by attrition- the gradual reduction of services because some bureaucrat in Washington DC thinks it costs too much to treat you. That is not what we want is it?
The blood of freedom and revolution once flowed from Massachusetts. It was instrumental in saving us from the Crown and tyranny. It helped create our most hallowed document, the Constitution of the United States of America. I implore you, take action to save it now. Massachusetts, it is your DUTY as Americans to stop the socialist gallop in DC and save our Union. Parties be damned.
The memory of Ted Kennedy is not worth destroying a nation over.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.12.10 @ 7:56PM
Hear! Hear! Liberty or Death.
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 8:12PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Scott Brown Surge [spectator.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Legends and Lies| 1.12.10 @ 11:12PM
NEED Liberty or Death ALL THE TIME,ALL THE WAY ,YEAH~~~~
green coffee 800
zi xiu tang
Yosemeti Sam| 1.12.10 @ 11:14PM
In memory of Mary Jo Kopechne:
Massachusetts voters: erase the ' Kennedy seat ' - once and for final!
Figurative poetic justice served - cold!
Win this one for Mary Jo.
Bostonian| 1.13.10 @ 1:01AM
Gee, Scott Brown is kind of complicating the political narrative about MA, isn't he?
Honestly, we in MA have no problems voting for Republicans. However, we tend to elect fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal. More and more, Brown does not meet this historical test. If there were more Republicans like this around, the party might attract more MA voters.
If Scott Brown wins, it will be because he's managed to distance himself from some unpopular stances he held in the past. The 'independent' voter in MA still supports same-sex marriage or at least civil union rights, and is overwhelmingly pro-choice. Brown was once a solid anti-abortion traditionalist but has gone a bit mainstream for this election and has declared himself an advocate of states rights. Perhaps this is enough to convince the libertarian-minded independent to overlook any record of social conservativism.
Susan| 1.13.10 @ 1:06AM
Actually Rasmussen said that Coakley had 77 percent of dems, Brown had 88 percent of republicans, and Brown had 71 percent of independents.
So that is 28 percent of 37 percent
88 percent of 12 percent
71 percent of 51 percent
Brown currently is getting 57.13 percent
I sent him money as well.
Bostonian| 1.13.10 @ 1:15AM
This piece explains the error in this calculation: the 51% independent figure you use is party registration, not party self- identification. If the Rasmussen poll numbers are accurate, it could be argued that the situation is more likely: 50% democrats, 32% republicans, 19% independent.
If this is closer to the truth, Brown gets 38%. Not a bad showing.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/.....and_pa.php
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 4:41AM
New York Real Estate Expecting A Purchasing Boom | Haute Living … | New York Real Est links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 5:10AM
Most Tweeted Articles by Conservative Experts links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 6:51AM
Mary Kunz Goldman blogs daily while writing Leonard Pennario's … | Erie County NY Rea links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 6:51AM
Mary Kunz Goldman blogs daily while writing Leonard Pennario's … | Erie County NY Rea links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
S.L. Toddard| 1.13.10 @ 7:35AM
I watched the debate last night. The candidate who came off the best - and by "the best" I mean the most honest and fiscally conservative - was Joe Kennedy, a Libertarian who's running as an independent. Scott Brown and Martha Coakley both seem ready for the Beltway Big Leagues – unfortunately -like everyone else in the Beltway - both Brown and Coakley spoke entirely in meaningless generalizations and slick, substance-free soundbites. They were both playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - shoveling horse sh*t for the suckers, smiling and reading from the establishment script. Joe Kennedy though - he seemed out of place, to say the least. He got up, said what he believed, said if you agree with him you should vote for him. He said he'd cut spending. He pointed out that Scott Brown has no plans to cut spending. He said he'd reject Obamacare. He pointed out that Coakley would not reject Obamacare. He spoke plainly and plainly honestly - the man was genuinely sincere. It was distinctly odd seeing that - a real human being behind one of those podiums. Martha Coakley wants to confiscate Americans' wealth to centralize money and power in Big Government to enact massive and massively expensive social programs. Scott Brown wants to confiscate Americans' wealth to centralize money and power in Big Government and waste it policing the globe and waging perpetual wars all over the planet.
Joe Kennedy (no relation to *The* Kennedys) advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, and would disengage from our Big Government nation-building projects in the Middle East. He pledges to cut taxes and cut spending - really cut spending, I mean - by ending myriad federal projects both at home (Obamacare) and overseas (Iraq/Afghanistan). Unfortunately (for me) he more or less advocates amnesty for illegals and seems not to care too much for border control. But, since both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley plan to leave the border wide open anyway I have to endorse Joe Kennedy over the other two.
Joe Kennedy is consistently small government, pro-Constitution and pro-Liberty. He is misguided on immigration (and I'm sure I disagree on more than that with him, being that he is a Libertarian and I am not), and that's as imporant an issue as any, but he is (practically speaking) no worse than the other two on that issue. On the rest of them I think he's better.
Mr. Antle, have you any opinions on Joe Kennedy?
MOSwas71331| 1.13.10 @ 10:03AM
From your description of their positions, I'd prefer this Kennedy over both Brown and Coakley. However, unless the Kennedy name convinces many voters that K's a D, he might split the anti-O vote and get Coakley elected with a plurality. That would be a catastrophe.
S.L. Toddard| 1.13.10 @ 10:37AM
No it would not be a catastrophe. it would be a continuation of the status quo. A democrat senator from Massachusetts is anything but a "catastrophe" - that what we have and what we've had for decades.
Kennedy's getting my vote.
eRtwngr | 1.13.10 @ 8:02AM
"Even so, few observers gave Brown much of a chance to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat"
"With all due respect, it's not Ted Kennedy's seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat." - Scott Brown
fedupinflorida| 1.13.10 @ 9:52AM
Monday Brown's campaign had a money bomb fundraiser with a goal of $500k. By midnight, he had almost TRIPLED his goal with $1.3M.
The liberal blog, DailyKos, put up an ActBlue account to counter-attack Brown's money bomb. As of last evening, total $221,753.
btw, here's a video that shows Dems may have paid union workers to hold signs for Coakley at a Scott Brown rally.
According to someone at the rally, one of the union workers actually turned around and said "I’m paid to be here, but I’m voting for Scott Brown. I just need the money, but don’t tell anyone."
http://www.flemingandhayes.com.....-us-senate
xiphos| 1.13.10 @ 10:09AM
"Ted Kennedy's seat"? It's in hell........if the libs want it, go there.
fedupinflorida| 1.13.10 @ 11:09AM
Caught on video, Coakley thug shoves and intimidates reporter from The Weekly Standard.
http://weeklystandard.com/blog.....al-railing
If they're doing this crap now, what kind of shenanigans are they going to pull Tuesday?
Folks who live in Massachusetts need to make sure this gets media attention everyday from now until election day. Don't let them sweep it under the rug!
S.L. Toddard| 1.13.10 @ 12:44PM
Give me a break.
Bostonian| 1.13.10 @ 2:18PM
Yes, I'd much rather focus on this than, you know, actual issues. I'm still weighing my decision. Who pushes whom or who holds signs for whom will not factor into it in the slightest.
explosion proof light | 11.25.10 @ 2:04AM
Hello, Bostonian, For most Americans, Obama doesn't seem to be giving them something they don't have, but instead to be taking away something they already value.
JulieP| 1.13.10 @ 2:41PM
Martha Coakley is really dangerous for Massachussets. She said terrorists weren't even in Afghanistan anymore! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-lfaLAwqAY
Anthony| 1.15.10 @ 5:18AM
Something that hasn't gotten much press - Coakley was a DA & an AG in a state where three consecutive House Speakers were convicted felons, and a fourth may be run down my a grand jury. Several State Senators have been causght by the Feds taking bribes and are awaiting trial, and we had several famous child-molesting priests among us. In this environment, "Inspector" Coakley has never sent a serious criminal to jail, in fact, hasn't even prosecuted a serious case.
"I'm shocked...SHOCKED...to see bribes being taken right here in "MASSACHUSETTES"!
However, she HAS recently mounted her troops to go after - the Garden Clubs (who decorate traffic islands and other public spaces) of the Gay - er' Bay State for not filling out the proper paper work so they can be taxed!
What a phoney-Kennedy-accent-speaking turd this woman is!
Pingback| 1.17.10 @ 7:11PM
When Are We Going To Learn | Salt and Light Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.17.10 @ 7:25PM
The Foibles Of Martha Affect Real People : NO QUARTER links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.19.10 @ 5:10AM
Black Eye Politics » Will Obama “Corzine” Coakley’s Campaign links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.22.10 @ 6:07AM
Democratic Underground, What stage of grief are you in Poll. - Politics and Other Con links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.20.10 @ 3:18AM
Case closed: FBI says scientist was anthrax killer | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 12:50PM
Burglar logs into MySpace on store computer | ConcerningMySpace.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.24.10 @ 4:11PM
Virginia Republican ex-Governor to Campaign for Obama | RepublicanDaily.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
d | 4.2.10 @ 3:26AM
d
Pingback| 4.4.10 @ 9:13PM
Parkinson’s Linked to Genetic Mutation | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.17.10 @ 7:31AM
Fox News Sexes Up Steven Seagal Sex-Slave Coverage (vid) | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.24.10 @ 7:39PM
C.D.O. Days, S&M Nights at Derivatives Conference | GoodFinancial.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 9:57PM
is good