-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last week, Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill lost his running mate in the race for governor. Former Republican state legislator Paul Loscocco had joined with the Democrat-turned-independent earlier this year to run on a ticket to the right of the GOP on some key issues. But Loscocco just left the ticket and endorsed Republican gubernatorial nominee Charlie Baker.
So this week, the Boston Herald is reporting that Cahill is launching a $1 million negative ad campaign. His targets will presumably be both Baker and Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Patrick narrowly leads in most polls — though sometimes within the margin of error — and might be more likely to lose if the center-right vote could be consolidated. Presumably, some swing voters were waiting to see whether Baker or Cahill had a better chance of taking the incumbent down.
Cahill’s Republican campaign support, including head honcho John Weaver, has similarly bailed. It remains to be seen whether he can become competitive again with the time that remains. I’ve written about Cahill’s candidacy twice before on the main site.
O'Donnell is a nut| 10.4.10 @ 3:08PM
In a state as liberal as Massachusetts it is quite simply amazing a right wing third party believes it is doing anything other than siphoning votes away from the Republican candidate that can actually win.
Rob| 10.4.10 @ 6:39PM
From the Massachusetts Citizens for Life's Web site re its PAC's endorsement of Cahill for Governor:
1. Would you sign legislation that bans partial-birth abortion?
Yes. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, rightly
called partial-birth abortion, “infanticide.” This is a procedure every-
one should be able to agree on banning, regardless of political party.
2. Would you sign a law which makes the unborn child a second victim when
a crime is committed against a pregnant woman?
Yes.
3. Would you sign legislation called A Woman’s Right to Know Act, “Laura’s
Law,” which would offer women facts about both abortion and childbirth and
provide a 24 hour “reflection period.”?
Yes. I believe this is an important piece of legislation that would give a
woman the proper facts about her decision while also enabling her to
have the proper time to reflect on its consequences. I see another bene-
fit to this bill in that it could protect a young woman from being co-
erced into making a choice that she does not, in her heart, want to make.
4. Regarding stem cell research, “Adult Stem Cells” are easily obtained with no
risk to the donor. “Embryonic Stem Cells,” however, can only be obtained by
destroying living human embryos. Would you sign a bill that is against funding
Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
Ten years ago, advances in embryonic stem cell research forced a choice
between the welfare of suffering people and the interests of unborn hu-
man life. Today, the scientific advancements in respect to cord blood and
adult stem cells have largely made this a moot issue. If stem cell research
technology was as transformative as proponents claim, then private sec-
tor companies would invest in it, and we would hear reports of people
healed every day. Thus far, that has not happened.
5. Would you sign a bill that prohibits all cloning? This includes reproductive
cloning and so-called “therapeutic cloning” which creates human embryos for
experimentation and destruction.
Yes, I would.
6. Would you sign a bill that bans sex selection abortion?
Yes.
7. Would you sign a bill that requires women to have an ultrasound prior to an
abortion?
Yes.
8. Would you sign legislation that would prohibit abortion coercion?
Yes, I absolutely would. No woman should be coerced into an abortion.
9. Would you sign legislation known as the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness
Act” that would include fetal anesthesia options for unborn children?
Yes.
10. Would you oppose legislation that would legalize physician-assisted suicide?
Yes. Our laws should place an emphasis on promoting human dignity
at the end of life. Coupled with the passage of “Obama Care,” legal-
ized assisted-suicide could open a “Pandora’s Box” of unintended con-
sequences, leading us in the direction of devaluing life as a society, and
I do not believe that is a good thing.
http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/timcahill.html