Last month, I noted how Massachusetts Senate GOP candidate Scott Brown called out rival Democrat candidate Martha Coakley’s SEIU thug pals.
The Purple Shirts continue to “pull out all the stops” to install Coakley in Teddy Kennedy’s seat. The special election will be held January 19.
SEIU endorsed her in October, poured $214,000 into a radio ad buy for her in December, and are pouring all available “resources and clout” into her bid. As she prattles on about “economic justice,” Coakley now boasts a total campaign treasury of more than $5 million:
Attorney General Martha Coakley raised more than $1 million over the past six weeks for her US Senate campaign, bringing her total haul for the race to $5.2 million, her campaign reported yesterday. The campaign of her rival, state Senator Scott Brown, said it raised $700,000 during the same period, much of it on the Internet, for a total of $1.2 million.
Coakley, who faced three opponents in the Democratic primary, started the special election campaign with less than $500,000 in her campaign account, compared with about $300,000 for Brown, a Republican of Wrentham.
Coakley raised the $1 million between Nov. 20 and Dec. 31. The campaign did not release donor lists, say how much money the campaign spent over that period, or reveal how much it has in the bank to begin the new year. Those details must be included in information that has to be submitted next week to the Federal Election Commission.
Where’s the GOP establishment? As Ed Morrissey reported last week: AWOL.
Yes, once again, it’s up to grass-roots conservatives and independents to help a GOP candidate fight the Big Labor-backed corruptocrat. Demcare hangs in the balance. Yet, Brown received a measly $50,000 from the national GOP and NRSC compared to the nearly $1 million that radical leftist Dede Scozzafava raked in.
Sean Trende crunches the numbers and will be “stunned if Brown wins.” But Patrick Ruffini sees “evidence Scott Brown is within single digits.” And William Jacobson reports on the grass-roots conservative groundswell for underdog Brown:
Three things have happened in the last three weeks to make this election competitive:
1. Coakley’s “read my lips” moment: During the campaign, Coakley promised as a matter of “principle” not to support the Senate health bill if it contained restrictions on abortion. This promise was a prime fundraising tool. Just days after the primary, Coakley went back on this promise, and now is in the Harry Reid/Ben Nelson camp, to the anger of the left-wing base.
2. Obamacare is sinking in popularity: Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate demonstrated, in the weeks leading up to Christmas eve, the absolute moral corruption in Washington, D.C., by legally bribing Senators to vote for the health care bill. By supporting these efforts, Coakley has shown herself to be just more of the same (and her own maneuvers around the campaign finance laws drive that point home). At a time when the country is facing monumental deficits and national debt, Coakley handed Brown the central issue in the campaign – Democratic efforts to force through a health care bill which is unpopular and economically ruinous. Had Coakley stood by her “principles” she would not be in this position.
3. Brown has gone viral: Largely shunned by the Republican establishment, Brown has utilized an online strategy which has ignited a grassroots campaign to get Brown elected. Do a Google search of blogs, and you will see that Brown is the talk of the internet, and most posts about Coakley are negative. While the mainstream media still holds great sway, Brown is seen as rising and Coakley as more of the same. Brown is winning the online battle.
Moe Lane at RedState underscores that most of Coakley’s cash was spent securing the Dem nomination:
You see, most of that money Coakley raised got spent fighting for the nomination. William Jacobson’s all over this topic: while he and I both think that she’s got more money in the bank right now than Brown, it’s not the 5-to-1 advantage she’s hyping. At best, it’s 3-to-2. She’s also facing the problem that her public retreat on abortion language in the bill is going to depress enthusiasm in the progressive netroots; and that Republican activists at least have noted that flipping Massachusetts could – could! – possibly derail the health care rationing bill, and are contributing accordingly…
Pro-lifers in Massachusetts are also rallying around Brown. LifeNews reports:
In a state known for its left-leaning and pro-abortion politics, Brown has an uphill battle but he enjoys the support of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Jack Rowe, chairman of the MCFL PAC, emailed LifeNews.com today to say that he is seeing movement in Brown’s direction. “People are terribly upset about health care and asking what to do. Here is the very exciting part. We in Massachusetts can actually save the whole country from this awful health care. Our PAC has been supporting Scott Brown because he will be a pro-life vote in the Senate. Scott Brown will also vote against the health care bill. After the compromise bill comes out of conference, it must be approved again by each house. Brown will vote against the bill. That means there will not be 60 votes in the Senate. That means the bill will be defeated.” That’s a lofty goal but Rowe is encouraging pro-life advocates in Massachusetts to get involved in the special election. “Can we do it? We certainly can! Turn-out will be very small,” he said — adding that the pr-life movement could change the dynamics of the race of it gets mobilized.
You can do your part right now. Brown’s campaign site is here. His donation page is here. There’s a grass-roots “moneybomb” fundraiser for Brown on January 11.
Fight the SEIU and Demcare corruption. Help do the job the national GOP fund-raising organizations won’t do. With two weeks until the special election date in Massachusetts, there isn’t a moment to waste.blog comments powered by Disqus
March 12, 2014 07:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
March 9, 2014 11:01 AM by Doug Powers
Of course: CMS official says number of previously uninsured enrolling in O-care coverage ‘not a data point we’re collecting’
March 7, 2014 11:27 AM by Doug Powers
March 7, 2014 11:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
Categories: Health care