Martha Coakley’s Marie Antoinette/Jon Corzine moment; Update: Curt Schilling responds to Coakley
Scroll for updates…
Elitist billionaire Democrat Jon Corzine got his comeuppance last fall after driving New Jersey’s economy into the ground, driving businesses out of state, flaunting his wealth and power, and enabling systemic corruption. A moment late in the hotly-contested gubernatorial race served as the tipping point: Corzine’s fat jokes about Chris Christie. Corzine looked petty, petulant, and out-of-touch with Jersey voters. But he kept attacking his GOP opponent’s weight. Christie countered the condescension with a hilarious appearance on FBN/Don Imus’s radio simulcast — skewering Corzine’s economic failures and ad hominems while connecting with voters through infectious, self-deprecating humor:
Like Corzine, Democrat Mass. Senate candidate/state Attorney General Martha Coakley is a member of the left-wing elite who feels she has a certain unalienable right to “Ted Kennedy’s seat.” And like Corzine, Coakley and her political clique of Marie Antoinettes can no longer disguise their contempt for her challenger or his supporters.
The Boston Globe, questioning her listless campaigning and abbreviated schedule, spotlighted Coakley sneering at Brown’s non-stop meet-and-greets on the streets with ordinary voters (hat tip: William Jacobson):
Coakley enjoys statewide popularity because of her successes as attorney general and Middlesex district attorney. By at least one measure, her strategy is working: A Globe poll published Sunday showed her leading her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, by 15 percentage points.
For many Democrats, that is too close for comfort, in a race for the seat held for so long by a Kennedy in one of the bluest states in the land. Other polls have showed the race much tighter.
Despite that, there is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.
Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.
Yes, you see, because jetting down to D.C. for a soiree in the warm glow of Big Pharma fatcats and lobbyists puts her so much more in touch with the folks in Massachusetts!
What’s French for: Let them watch baseball.
Update: A reader e-mails that Fenway Park was hosting an outoor ice hockey game when Brown was shaking hands in the cold.
So: What’s French for “Let them watch ice hockey.”
***
Baseball great Curt Schilling — citing Cassy Fiano’s blog post — gives Coakley’s contempt a thumbs-down and thinks she has now clinched the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
36 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
190 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
55 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsPalin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
83 CommentsGOP Senators question upcoming $1 million Hawaiian conference for Ninth Circuit Court
May 21, 2012 03:12 PM by Doug Powers
151 Comments
Categories: Politics
Nice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNewsBusters.org
» Reuters's Freeland: 'Anorexic' Americans Think Tax Bite Too Heavy When In Fact It's Dangerously Thin
I haven’t demonized anybody. Show me where I have.
All I did was point out Brown’s liberal tendencies. I backed my statements with information acquired directly from Brown’s campaign website.
The debate I was TRYING for was more along the lines of whether that was the best that Massachusetts voters could do. Instead you guys come at me like I’m the second coming of Hitler.
Eight years of George Bush should have taught us much about LOTE voting, and its consequences. It sure taught me a lot. These are lessons eventually learned by everyone, and you will learn them at one point or another.
The point is this: Let’s have a debate over whether or not Brown’s liberal tendencies will be surmountable with him in the Senate. Have you considered this an option?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
It would be great if Scott Brown went on Imus In The Morning working a Strong Charm Offensive. Show some personality…folks like to relate to candidates. I have stated before Coakleys’ a bit of a brown bird…kind of colorless.
While that may be true, his personality has little to do with how he will govern.
Look to the current resident of the White House for proof.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
It is not a dumb thing to do. You should trash California voters as a group. And Minnesota and Massachusetts.
Just get rid of those three states, and the country might have a chance of surviving without cultural disintegration and annihilation.
Just remember there are a lot of us good people in those states …. just as there are many good people in Iran and Syria and North Korea and Cuba. Just as there were many good people in Germany and Japan in WWII. They were just badly outnumbered.
As people like me are badly outnumbered in California.
Do not confuse the groups with individuals within the groups.
There are still more genuine conservatives in California than there are in Oklahoma or Wyoming or Tennessee. Combined. By far.
Yet, on balance, the California Voter is a clueless leftwing nitwit.
It is leftists’ inability to distinguish between the groups and individuals within the groups that is the reason they think ‘we are all racists.’
I may be a Red Sox fan this year if Brown is elected!
Also, in this race, a third party candidate is the same as staying home.
That, or someone who would rather pi$$ on a snowbank instead of helping those who are trying to shovel out of it because their shovels don’t meet that person’s high standards.
I’m willing to use a teaspoon if that’s what it takes to end the Democrat strangle-hold on this state, and on this country.
And better wine.
The time to have that debate was either before Brown became the nominee or after Brown has defeated Coakley, not right now 5 days before an election that will be won by either Coakley or Brown.
Right now is the time for discussing the relative merits of the only two choices available.
Don’t trash them. Teach them. If the typical California voter is a clueless leftwing nitwit, it falls upon people like YOU who know better to show them the truth.
Yep. And of course this exposes them as racists in the same act!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Minnesota voters did not elect Al Franken.
They elected Norm Coleman, and the election was stolen.
Minnesota has elected goofballs like the Troofer ex-wrestler governor, and Coleman himself wasn’t exactly Barry Goldwater, but they didn’t choose Franken, they chose Coleman.
They just didn’t choose him by sufficient numbers to overcome the margin of election day fraud to avoid a recount. And Demonrats always cheat in recounts.
So by saying this, you have concluded that Brown’s liberal tendencies are surmountable?
If that’s what you believe, that’s fine. However, I was not around for the primaries and would like to know exactly what Massachussetts voters intend to do when Brown goes the way of the Left. How will you counter his support of illegal federal health programs once the liberal Republican version hits the floor? How will you counter his desire to spend big on illegal education programs? What will you do if he decides that HR45 is akin to “safe and responsible” gun ownership?
Talk to me.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Yeah.
And Frankenstein isn’t any funnier than when he was out attempting a rewarding career as a comic!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
One can write onself in if legally eligble to be a US Senator if one wants, it is still (less so every day Obama and cadre are in office) a free country, but only two candidates have a chance to win, and casting a protest ballot and perhaps being the margin between a corrupt Obama sockpuppet or a centrist being in the Senate seems foolish to me.
That was not necessary. It was stupid. And you really don’t know me well enough to talk to me that way. So STFU. Thank you.
Actually not true.
The debate is important at every stage so that people are aware of what they are voting for. They need to be thinking about these things from day one, and not stop just because the election is 5 days away.
Remember – “unity” is what got us into this mess in the first place.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Why bother?
There are only two choices. A conservative only has one choice, no matter how imperfect he may regard the choice.
You have made your choice. You will not bash Coakley. You will not even compare Coakley to Brown in the areas where they differ.
You are not a conservative.
I will not STFU. I’ll talk to you any way I damned well please, especially when you have shown that you have that very attitude towards me. And I will defend myself when I am unfairly attacked as I was on this thread.
You trashed me and others like me, for no other reason than we didn’t just bow down to your choice of candidate.
You know better than to come at me like that, and you don’t know me well enough to use descriptors such as the ones you have.
For encouraging debate, I’m now being told to STFU.
Yeah, ok. Like that’s going to happen.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
BTW, if I had to guess, the Libertarian candidate in Massachusetts is probably more pro-abortion than Brown.
The Libertarian is more likely to support gay marriage, and drug legalization.
They are usually good on Second Amendment issues.
Speaking of gun owning gay dopers in New England…
I agree, this will be a hold my nose moment for me, only because this is a very pivotal election, and other options constrained. I know, I know, hypocrite! I will, however correspond to Mr. Brown letting him know that if he wins, it was because of grass roots conservatism, not in spite of it. He better not make me regret my vote!
I curse LOTE!
People are free to vote for any candidate in a race they want, but I can’t think of anything more foolish than costing the more conservative of the two candidates, even if he isn’t a pure as the driven snow conservative, the election to cast a protest vote.
Sadly, there just aren’t enough real conservatives in New York/New England to elect a real conservative to a state wide office.
Ditto California. Someone like Duncan Hunter can win House races, but the only Republicans who can win statewide races are centrist/lukewarm squishes like Schwarzenneger.
In New England, Republicans can’t even win House races…
Oh, but it’s just fine and dandy to accuse me of trashing Constitutionalists? That was mean, nasty and just plain not true. I come from a long line of Patriots going all the way back to the Mayflower. And I LOVE our Constitution. It is our only hope. Yet you say that to me. That was extremely hurtful. And you wonder why I got angry? That’s why. I am done with you.
True enough, but his position would be based upon Constitutional grounds on all of the above. He would also be more than happy to debate the issue.
Not likely to get the same from Rs and Ds.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
That is not why I told you to STFU and you know it.
Do you live in Massachusetts? I’m guessing the answer is no since you earlier said that you hadn’t checked out the libertarian candidate here.
I have, and Al Gore has a better chance of being a Cosmo centerfold [in his present form *ick*] than Joe Kennedy [no relation to Teddy] does of beating Martha Coakley – ergo, a vote for Joe is a vote for Martha.
That’s what this is about. You don’t have to like it. You can vote the way you want wherever it is that you live and feel really good about yourself that you’ve voted for that perfect candidate.
Well it;s exactly what you did.
My issues with Brown are purely Constitutional in nature, so by trashing me, especially knowing my position and from whence it is derived, you are indeed trashing Constitutionalist positions.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Voting LOTE does NOT make you a hypocrite. If you sincerely believe that you are voting for the right candidate and you have ideas in mind for how to counter those things you do not agree with, then there is no hypocrisy involved in your “nose-holding”.
The bottom line is that you take the time to consider ALL of this, especially what you will do when he goes the other way – and he will.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
This may be true.
Hopefully Brown will move things far enough to the right that people will want more freedom. If he can accomplish that, he’ll probably be replaced by someone more appropriate, but will still be owed a debt of gratitude by all freedom-loving Americans.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
it wasn’t one of your patriot ancestors that trashed me unfairly. It was you.
If you love our Constitution so much, why are you so willing to put it in the hands of Scott Brown without answering to either why you think he can be trusted with it or what your plan of action is for when he violates it.
If you love it so much, how come you had no idea there was so much anti-Constitutional action going on in DC? How come you had no clue that he advocated unconstitutional positions? I would think that would be a high priority for someone who so loves the Constitution. If you really believed it was our only hope, methinks you would be on my side of this argument. Yet you didn’t even know.
Frankly, I couldn’t give two craps if something I said to you was “hurtful”. What do you think my feeling was about what you said to me? Did you care how it would make me feel? I seriously doubt it.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
MA voters: Take your video cameras to the polls. I know precedent says that black panthers can carry nightsticks to the polls, but I’m not sure yet whether they are cleared to actually hit anyone.
And I guess the jury(i.e.administration) is still out on what the SEIU will be allowed to do… if they apologize after they do it..
Sigh…I will try one more time. I didn’t realize that a requirement to post here was that we had to lay out a plan of action for what to do if a candidate doesn’t work out. If I had known the rules, I may have been more thorough in my answer. Now that you have laid out the rules, I will try to follow them. Because you, RWR are the authority here and what you say goes. Oh, wait. I mean, STFU.
Um…why would you say a thing like that? I know exactly what is going on in DC.
I’m not sure you are the best judge on what I know and what I don’t know. Your take on these issues and mine are different. I don’t need to justify myself to you.
This might not be true if conservatives would do their homework when choosing candidates. It also might not be true if conservatives would allow someone other than a Republican into the spotlight, especially given the treatment conservatives have gotten from the Republican Party for so long.
A vote for Joe is a vote for Joe. Martha is toast anyway.
Besides, having these libs in high places is doing wonders for the conservative movement. It’s virtually guaranteeing better choices of candidates this year and in 2012. It’s awakened Americans to the need for Constitutional government. It’s just about bankrupted the two political parties that have been raping us so for so long.
I doubt a McCain presidency would have given us all this.
So yeah, my Keyes vote is working out for me just fine. Not a vote for Obama or a vote for McCain, but a vote for the candidate that best espoused what I believed was best for America.
Kinda neat how we’re actually GETTING what I was shooting for even though someone else got sworn in, now isn’t it?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Actually, if we are to believe Florida Demonratic voters were too stupid to tell al-Ghour from Bat Puchanan on a ballot, than there are probably some Demonrats who’ll get confused and vote for Kennedy.
We can hope.
With all due respect, rocker, neither you nor happy vote in Massachusetts. So while you are both free to ‘voice’ your opinions, neither she nor you will be held accountable for putting our Constitution in the hands of Scott Brown – though if Martha Coakley wins because people like you worked so assiduously to discourage voters from supporting Scott Brown, well, then talk to me about how well our Constitution is upheld and protected by her and her ilk.
It wasn’t. My purpose was to get you to think of one.
I would say a thing like that because you said this:
You not only insulted me with baseless name-calling here, but had no response to the examples I provided in my subsequent comment. According to the evidence, you did not know that the RINOS were trashing the Constitution and that Scott Brown was in that camp.
No you don’t, but by choosing that course of action, you choose to concede my point. My basis for my statements regarding what you know and don’t know was made abundantly clear, and you did not provide evidence to the contrary, thus again conceding my point. I would love to know how you justify those things on a Constitutional basis. That’s why I asked. You chose not to answer, so I’m left with what I’m left with.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
First of all, I will re-establish that I am in no way trying to discourage voters from supporting Scott Brown. What I am working so assiduously to discourage is voters supporting Scott Brown (or, for that matter, Martha Coakley) without being able to support and defend their vote when confronted with objectionable facts about the man.
Coakley winning isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Can you honestly say that Barack Obama’s occupation of the White House hasn’t had a HUGE positive affect on the attitudes of Americans towards her heritage and her Constitution, and that this would have still happened had the RINO won?
If you are saying that I am discouraging voters from Brown, you are misreading my comments.
As far as happy and I are concerned, we both have to live with the consequences of the voters’ decision in Massachusetts, just like the rest of America does, so we do have the right – even the responsibility – to challenge Massachusetts voters so that they go to the polls knowing for whom and for what they are voting. This can NEVER be a bad thing.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
rocker, go ahead and feel all superior.
In your way, you’re just as bad as the political whores on Beacon Hill.
And we still have work to do here. You’ve become nothing but an unwelcome distraction….
Good lord! I was about to hit submit comment and saw this:
I’ll repeat what I said yesterday, and no apologies for it; you are a flaming idiot!
Take your perverted ideas of political purity and stuff them!
RWR, I usually agree with your posts. But I must say I’m having a hard time following you here. You say you held your nose to vote for Christie, but you plan to hold him accountable to conservatives. Great. It does beg the question of why, to be really true to your professed values, you didn’t write in another candidate’s name, or not vote.
Now you seem to be attempting to discourage those in MA from voting for Scott Brown, even though this election will have far-reaching consequences in the very near future for all of us. Why can’t you give MA voters the same permission you gave yourself when you voted for Christie?
As far as dumb voters are concerned…
Canuck Lisa Van Dusen :
” It’s a bit hard to swallow all that righteous indignation over the sanctity of Senate elections in a country that, as recently as 2000, produced the headline, “Dead Man Wins Senate Seat.”
In that race, the Democratic governor of Missouri, Mel Carnahan, who had been killed in a plane crash three weeks before the election, overcame what would otherwise have been an insurmountable disadvantage to defeat Republican Sen. John Ashcroft. “
Go Scott Brown. He took an oath as an officer in the guard to support and defend the Constitution. Ocommiebama took the same oath and he trashes the Constitution daily. Scott Brown beats most lefties like a drum. I believe he will be a monstrous improvement over the killer Kennedy. Perfect –no, but honorable –yes. RWR–Give us your list of candidates for future races so we can all get smart–NOT.
For the last time, I AM NOT TRYING TO DISCOURAGE MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR SCOTT BROWN!!!
Please read my comments. I am asking them to defend their choice, as I did my choice of Governor-elect Christie.
It would seem that these people have no idea that this man is so liberal, but for my letting them know. For bringing it to their attention, for supporting my position with Brown’s own statements and the Constitution, and for asking for asking them to defend their choice, I’ve been demonized.
For bringing attention to the fact that Oblahma walking into the White House has been largely good for conservatives (and not ruling out that Coakley could yield similar unforeseen results), I’ve been called a “flaming idiot”.
The fact that this election will have far-reaching consequences in the very near future for all of us is even more reason to be sure that Massachusetts voters are in the know about their candidates and can defend their choice when confronted.
I’d like to know what these people will do when he moves into unacceptable territory. Given their quiet acceptance of his predecessor’s criminal deeds both in and out of DC, I think it’s a valid question.
Maybe a better question is why people are dodging the questions. Are they afraid of the truth? Do they even care? Are they so hell-bent on keeping Democrats out of office that they’re willing to put a Democrat-lite into office?
It’s also valid to ask why the Republican is a better candidate than the Libertarian and not accept the meme about the Republican being the only one that has a chance to win. From an issues standpoint, what makes Scott Brown a better choice than Joe Kennedy? If Joe were to win the election, what would you have to guard against that makes Scott more palatable?
I’m simply asking for honest answers, and for doing so I am forced to defend my positions (which I don’t mind – that’s what debate is all about) while dodging personal attacks on myself (which I do mind) from people who could and should be taking the time to actually think about what I’m saying.
These are important questions that need to be asked of Massachusetts voters, and the Clintonesque name-calling and demonization diverts us from having that debate …
which is EXACTLY what the liberals want.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Yes, I was at one of those ice hockey games at Fenway Park, and I froze my ass off (so did my 14 year old). Scott was not within sight that night, but his daughter Ayla (she is a student at Boston College) sang ‘The National Anthem’. It was beyond moving. This talented and confident kid stood in the middle of a rink, in the middle of a baseball field, filled with 40,000 drunken BC and BU alumni, and sang – a cappella – ‘The National Anthem’. The way it was meant to be sung. As a dad Scott Brown gets straight A’s.
Bringing candidates forth is the job of the party choosing the candidate.
Sadly, it seems the people aren’t willing to subject these candidates to the appropriate scrutiny, which is all I’m trying to do.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
… and asking you to do.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Perhaps the reason some are getting frustrated with you is that you seem bent on “analyzing” Scott Brown with what seems like a foregone conclusion in mind – that conservatives should not vote for him. Meanwhile, you admit that you voted for Christie, whom you didn’t see as a true conservative, either, yet your standard for “analyzing” that situation seems to come to a different conclusion – hold him accountable, but make sure he gets into office! I say, why not apply the same standard to Scott Brown? Or any other candidate, for that matter?
RWR, my post #148 was for you, BTW.
RWR–Like the RNC pick in NY-23–more left than the Dimocrat candidate. Conservatives are backing candidates they think are best–eg Rubio over Christ in Florida. The Republican party puts forth losers–McCain. No more. How do you eat an elephant–one bite at a time.
If you bothered to take the time to read my comments, you will see that I in no way attempted to discourage anyone from voting for him. All I did was call attention to the fact that he should not be touted as a “Tea Party” candidate or lauded as a conservative, because he isn’t one, and thus a victory for him is NOT a victory for conservatives, as many here would have you believe.
I’m doing two things here, one of which I absolutely should NOT have to do: 1. educating people about things they don’t seem to know about Scott Brown, and 2. defending myself against baseless attacks.
That is fine with me. Really it is.
However, as I did prior to the November election, I stipulated the reasons for my Christie vote, and am simply asking people to do the same with their support for Brown. In case you didn’t make it be the RWRepublic this past fall, here are my stipulations:
1. The other two candidates were both to the left of Christie (which does not seem to be the case in the race in question),
and 2. New Jersey Republicans, while not particularly conservative, do manage to get the economy moving.
I did and will continue to stipulate that we will have to keep an eye on him, particularly given his record of licking the boots of organized crime bosses just like his predecessor.
Now, can someone do the same for Scott Brown? It’s only fair.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Yup.
In this case, though, the first bite may have to be out of Senator Brown. We are talking about Massachusetts here.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Wow.
Please excuse my faulty grammar in #151. I am better than that.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
As a matter of fact, I have read your posts. Maybe I oversimplified your remarks. Maybe you were just talking out of both sides of your mouth. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions WRT your own situation in NJ speak volumes louder than your philosophizing about the MA race.
Or maybe I’d just like to know what people think makes this guy so good – and better than his opponents.
How about it?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Once again, RWR, it is clear your purpose here is to attack Brown, not to discuss whether Brown or Coakley will be the better choice.
A hard left politician is in trouble, so in the closing days of the campaign you attack the only actual alternative to the leftist.
That makes you a supporter of the leftwing agenda no matter what kind of ‘positions’ or excuses you spew.
The leftists who read the comments here would be cheering you on if it wouldn’t blow your cover.
It’s Propaganda 101, RWR. If you can establish what is to be discussed, you have already won the campaign.
If your campaign can always make the discussion about your opponents flaws, real or imagined, you will always win, no matter how lousy your own candidate is.
I say discuss the differences between Coakley and Brown. You say discuss any weakness in Brown’s conservatism.
Which one of those things do you think the Left wants us to discuss now, in the final days of the campaign???
You are no conservative. The only question is if you are a useful idiot for the left or an actual leftist propagandist who knows exactly what you’re doing.
Coakley, the democrat elitist, really, really thinks she’s the heir apparent to “that” senate seat. Elitist are sooo disgusting.
If someone would choose to have that discussion, it would be nice. It’s exactly what I’ve been trying for. It’s you people who have been going off on the tangent.
There’s another candidate in the race as well. Why is Brown a better candidate substantively than he?
Nice alternative … another leftist. I’m not buying it, especially with a Libertarian in the race.
So you, who are supporting a leftist candidate, are calling me, for demanding answers as to why you support said leftist, a “supporter of the leftwing agenda”.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?
HA!
Leftists are more afraid of me that you are.
I think it’s high time the Constitution were discussed, and every candidate’s positions should be measured against it. It’s long past time to do this. It’s also never too late to start.
I don’t have a campaign, and I therefore don’t have opponents in that sense. My opponent is liberalism/fascism/socialism/communism/progressivism, and I will fight that opponent on every front, even as it infiltrates an otherwise conservative medium such as this. Are you getting the picture yet?
Bull.
I say defend your position that Brown is your guy. I’ve already shown you his weaknesses. Now what I’m looking for is your substantive defense of your support for that candidate in light of those weaknesses. I defended my support for a non-conservative candidate in November. Now I’m asking you to do it here. I support Brown, in case you hadn’t noticed, but I want you to defend your position based on actual issues, and substantively explain why you would support a 30% conservative candidate over a 70% conservative candidate in the same race.
The Left is perfectly happy to watch you engage in name-calling and demonization when the substance of their alternative candidate is called into question.
Quite the contrary. I’m a vibrant and grounded conservative. Voting for a candidate on the grounds that he’s the one you think can win is a liberal thing. Do you not remember the logic behind voting for Bill Clinton in 1992?
I’ve already defended my conservatism on substance against your assaults. Maybe I should ask you to do the same?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
So this is what I get for defending you, eh, Roland?
Maybe Sage was right.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Time to stop and think, Roland.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Lots of good comments here. I have removed myself from the fray because I was getting emotionally involved and angry. But Roland, you nailed the flaws in RWR’s arguments best…instead of highlighting the major and enormous differences in these two candidates, RWR just highlights Brown’s flaws. Not helpful this close to a VERY important election. Calling these two people equally liberal is incorrect and definitely not helpful.
By the way, Wayfaring Stranger…you are right that neither RWR nor I live in MA and therefore have no vote. I do feel, however, involved in this by way of contributing to Brown’s campaign and by understanding the incredible importance of this particular election. Now, I will continue to support him with prayer.
Coakley’s flaws should be a foregone conclusion here.
I did not call these two people equally liberal. I simply pointed out that Brown ain’t a choirboy either, and that Massachusetts voters will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do when this guy goes the way of the Left, which IS going to happen at some point.
Quite the contrary, any increased knowledge and understanding of a candidate’s flaws only increases the education level of the voting populace. I cannot see how this can ever be a bad thing.
I’m all for Brown winning, and I’m all for people voting for him over Croaky, but I am not about to tolerate it happening without clear and strong understanding of what the man is really about. Thomas Jefferson would be proud of us for doing so, yet instead people have gone the way of the Left and engaged in baseless demonization and name-calling.
I never roll over for ANY candidate or party. Not even my own. My own choice for POTUS was flawed in that he supported the war on drugs, a completely foolish and illegal venture by the US government. I voted for him because that was the only place I could find any difference, but I cast that vote with the FULL KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING of what and whom I was voting for.
That’s all I’m trying to do. You guys are the ones that started the shouting match.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Since there’s so much clamor to discuss the most inappropriate candidate for Senate from Massachusetts, here’s the skinny on Coakley:
FOR government healthcare (So is Scott)
FOR legal abortion (so is Scott)
FOR illegal hate crimes legislation (no opinion from Scott)
AGAINST capital punishment (Scott is FOR)
FOR government meddling in the economy (so is Scott)
FOR illegal government environmental programs (so is Scott)
FOR Cap and Tax (Scott is AGAINST)
FOR Socialist Security and its expansion (no opinion from Scott)
FOR illegal government meddling in education (so is Scott)
FOR expansion of veterans care (so is Scott)
FOR kissing Iranian a$$ (Scott is AGANIST)
AGAINST winning in Afghanistan (no opinion from Scott)
So there you have it. Scott is better on Iran, capital punishment, and cap-and tax. That’s pretty much it. This is based on the two candidates’ campaign web sites.
The question voters have to ask themselves in contrasting these two candidates is whether that is enough to warrant their casting votes for him.
I’m all for it, as long as said voters take the time to know this stuff and think seriously about it. They should also do this same research to contrast Brown and Kennedy (the Libertarian). No one should vote outside his conscience. If Brown’s positions are more in line with their beliefs about America and such, then he should get their votes, but not if Kennedy fits their beliefs more appropriately.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I hope you know that I only included you in that comment because of that idiot’s comment about you being willing to place our Constitution in Scott Brown’s [according to him] unworthy hands. My point wasn’t to disparage your support, but to point out the idiocy of his argument that our Constitution would be better served by letting someone like Coakley get elected.
Sorry the wording wasn’t clearer, my friend. Of course support, whether via donations, prayer, etc., are always helpful and welcome, no matter whether the source has a vote here or not.
It’s the saboteurs like RWR that aren’t.
And yet you made no attempt to explain why Scott Brown’s hands are worthy.
For asking you to do so, I am an “idiot” and a “saboteur”?
Yeah, ok. You are the one throwing the stones, don’t forget.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I think Roland just found RWR’s cover. I suspected as such during the national election, when EVERY post he wrote was why he isn’t going to vote for John McCain. NEVER about Obama, only about why McCain is a bad choice.
He’s doing the same thing here.
Moby.
I also looked @ Brown’s website, and found this Globe article comparing the two candidates in a nutshell. Other than abortion, I agree w/his positions, as described by the Globe, which I would expect wouldn’t want to paint him in the best light.
OK …
I just reviewed each and every comment I made on this thread, and at NO TIME did I engage in demonization or name-calling. I did call Brown a liberal, which is completely true, and I accused happyscrapper of trashing Constitutionalists because, well, she did.
I did not call anyone an idiot, a saboteur, or “off the deep end”. I simply attempted to engage in substantive debate over whether Scott Brown was the right guy for the job.
For doing so, I was called all those things and more – and the substance of my arguments were never even questioned or responded to. No one sought to justify electing a RomneyCare supporter to the US Senate in this day when the US government is trying to take over the health system so that it can take over even more. I would think a conservative would enjoy the debate, and one who took the time to think about it might try to play a more active role in keeping this aspect of Scott Brown’s Senatorial days under control. Instead of demonizing and calling names, why don’t you people stop and think about this stuff? I mean, when Hoffman was up there (he wasn’t the Republican candidate either), you did. Why not now?
You really need to stop throwing the “liberal tactic” crap at me as well. Conservative bloggers and their commentors all should know better. You deal with stupid liberal demonizations and name-calling every day both here and on other blogs, and you can’t see that what you are doing is right out of their playbook?
Anyway, when you guys are willing to think about my questions and such, I’m fully prepared to debate the matter, and will gladly engage in the discussion. By engaging in name-calling and demonization, you lose.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Again, around here the fact that Obama was a bad choice SHOULD have been a foregone conclusion. McCain was an equally bad choice – far worse than Brown, who has the potential to do quite well as long as he’s watched considerably more closely than his predecessor.
What I’m taking issue with here is the blind following that’s going on towards people like Brown and McCain. When someone brings up an obvious truth that goes against your guy, you don’t address the issue/concern that was brought up, but rather engage in liberal war tactics.
We all should know already why Coakley is bad. Letting that stop us from getting into the nuts and bolts of Brown is a mistake of biblical proportions.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
OK. FINALLY.
Thanks, MtsEdge. Let me check out your link.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
OK …
On healthcare, I have to disagree with you. According to the article you linked, Brown seems to be ok with big government healthcare as long as it doesn’t occur at Massachusetts’ expense. I can find no basis in the Constitution to justify big government healthcare at the federal level at all, and I would be very concerned that Brown would support something that included a bribe similar to the ones cut by Harry Reid if it eased the cost on his state to his satisfaction. Do you see this as well?
On the environment, the article clearly paints Scott as one of us. However, just because he doesn’t support cap-and-trade doesn’t mean he doesn’t support other illegal government environmental programs. His website says he supports “common sense environment policy”, which has never meant rolling back illegal government environmental programs when coming from a politician. What’s your take?
Also, the information on the campaign pages is much more complete than this. Based on this article, I would agree with Brown on 5 of the 8 items, but I get a much different read when I go to his website.
Thank you very much for engaging me. This is how debate should go.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
On January 14th, 2010 at 3:36 pm, happyscrapper said:
If you liked that, you’ll also like this…
I’m with you that the Federal government shouldn’t be in the business of providing healthcare. And before we had the New Deal, it wasn’t. Families took care of their own, and those without families sought help from churches or private charitable organizations. This is much more in line with my own personal convictions. We should help one another out of the goodness of our heart, to the degree that we can/are willing to, not at the coercion of the government. So, to the degree that Scott Brown has no regrets about MassCare, and would like for it to be a model for the US, I’d have to disagree with him on principle.
Not sure about the environmental stuff, although I think that some mandates/restrictions are necessary to ensure that businesses “do the right thing” WRT dumping waste, etc. I do think that any environmental mandates/restrictions invite abuse by the government (particularly like “cap and tax”), so there must be a balance struck here between businesses’ interests and the interests of the people in having clean air and water.
I’m much more certain of my position here. The Constitution does not authorize this. If a state’s constitution allows or better yet, a local government wishes to regulate, so be it, but there’s neither need nor legal justification for federal involvement unless perhaps there’s an issue between two states that can’t get it worked out. In that case, though, I still wonder under which article and section the government would be authorized to act. I don’t see anything in the quick glance I just gave the Constitution. Do you?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I don’t even have to look to know what that probably is!
HAHAHA
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I didn’t see anything that suggested that Brown would like RomneyCare to be a model for the US.
RomneyCare is broke and has been for a long time. I doubt anyone would be holding that one up as any kind of model for the country even if it were legal.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
what I said in #175 is precisely the way to achieve that balance.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
WRT the Constitutional authority for environmental regulation, I’d guess the commerce clause, or perhaps “general welfare” – realizing that the concept has been perverted in recent years. However, again, I do recognize the danger of centralizing any type of power at the Federal level. If the States make the call as to what to require/regulate, businesses that couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to meet a state’s requirements would still have an option to relocate. When the Feds, who are far removed from the actual impact of their decisions, retain the power to make these calls, we wind up with cap and tax and other unjustifiable abuses of their power.
And sadly, MtsEdge (and other friends), this idiot sabateur who’s off the deep end is going to take leave of this thread, probably at least for the night (we will see if Mr. Insomnia decides to rear his ugly head). I need some R&R.
I do hope the demonizers will reconsider and spend some time in the more complete discussion of Scott Brown that does need to be had if Massachusetts voters are going to make properly informed decisions. If not on this thread, then on another.
Good night all!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I wouldn’t trust DC with either of those justifications, and local control is ALWAYS better than federal, as you pointed out.
Good night, my good friend.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I agree with a free market solution, which includes getting gov’t. OUT of healthcare wherever possible. However, he does seem to have no regrets about Mass Care. Hopefully, his statement is a representation of a transition in his thinking that it should NOT be a model for other states.
Good night!
As Imus used to say (?still says?): Jesus God Almighty!
I guess I was spot on about the possibility of a mole trying to sow discord and confusion.
Good posts, WF, HS, and Roland.
By my ballpark reckoning, the mole accounted for ~50% of the posts.
If not in length of individual posts, but rather in shear number of posts, after post, after post,after…, saying the same things, the same thing, the same thing…; I think we have a competitor for zzz-zzz-zzz, the endless poster…both of whom illustrate the validity the advice of one of my residents during my internship:
“The longer you make your note [in the patient's chart], the less likely it is that someone is actually going to read it.”
Suffice it to say that I did lots of skimming over roughly half of the last 100 or so posts!
Uh … does MM know HER BLOG has been hacked by some guy calling himself Right Wing Rocker, I wonder?
Just posted at HotAir:
Uh … no hack here.
I’m a fully-registered commentor at this blog, and my views are solidly right-wing – much more solidly so than yours, I reckon, given my willingness to hear what you folks have to say about this liberal Republican that’s running for Senate as opposed to your unwillingness to defend your positions on substance.
You are welcome to address these concerns at any time, or at least explain why, on substance, you support this candidate despite his liberal leanings. Go ahead and count the times someone has called names or demonized anyone. You will find that I have done neither, that my positions are dead-on accurate, and that only MtsEdge has sought to actually have a discussion based on the actual substance of the campaign.
First of all, not a mole.
Second, take a look at how much time I spent working around personal attacks that had nothing to do with the debate, and you might as well deduct that from your count. Do you really expect me to sit idly by when I’m being baselessly attacked for no reason other than I have presented evidence that Scott brown is a liberal – something most of you already know? Why not answer the questions? Why not justify your positions? I have done so, and I have backed up my statements with facts – including material found on Scott Brown’s own campaign website. How about actually discussing the issue so that Massachusetts voters have the benefit of the debate being available here for them to peruse over in making their decisions more educated ones? Are you really that afraid of the truth? Do you really think showing Brown to be a liberal is going to hurt his chances of getting elected in Massachusetts????
Come on. We conservatives are better than that.
Some years ago, when I was a teacher, we were on a school trip to Williamsburg, Virginia. I was privileged to attend a seminar given by a VERY GOOD Thomas Jefferson impersonator. There was a Q&A session, and we were advised that we should address this man as if he were Jefferson himself – that is to say, that you could ask about current events, but you would have to word the questions in general enough terms that they could be answered by someone who wasn’t aware of the events.
Of course, this was during the time Mr. Clinton was being exposed as a perjeror, among other things. A question was asked about Clinton (in the proper general terms, of course), and “Mr. Jefferson” responded that if the people elect someone to office knowing he had these flaws (and we certainly did have that knowledge in 1992), then they must shoulder the responsibility for his continued behavior while in office.
That was about eleven years ago, but I haven’t forgotten the wise words of the man who would impersonate Thomas Jefferson for the purpose of educating people about our history and culture. Too much of this important knowledge is lost on today’s youth because the schools simply refuse to teach it.
Likewise, people don’t like to learn things they don’t want to know. Scott Brown supporters don’t want to hear about how similar he really is to Croaky, but of what benefit is that ignorance to them at the ballot box, and after Brown takes his Senate oath? Take the time to face and consider the cold hard (often inconvenient) facts, and you go to the polls knowing your candidate, what his positives are, what his negatives are, and most importantly, how you will handle the inevitable situation where those negatives come to the fore.
I’ll go back to my POTUS vote as a further example. How well did I really know Fred Thompson when I supported him? The sad answer happens to be just about as well as most of you know Scott Brown. Once I looked a little closer, I knew he wasn’t the best man for the job, even as a write-in, which I had supported. I researched the other candidates and found Alan Keyes to be the best. The only place he and I were actually in disagreement was on the war on drugs, which he supports and I do not. He’s right on the Constitution, right on freedom and liberty, and he’s dead-on right pretty much across the board other than that one point.
So I had to make a decision about whether I could support a candidate who supported the war on drugs, which I oppose on constitutional grounds, and claims to support the Constitution, despite its not allowing the federal government to prosecute a war on drugs. It was a tough call, but since Keyes had already been in a situation to “put his money where his mouth was” and succeeded, I cast my vote in his favor with the understanding that he may want to answer some questions about the constitutionality of the war on drugs if he should win.
It was a cold hard fact that I had to face. I faced it, decided WHY I would still support him, decided how missteps would be handled by me (having a blog is a huge convenience on this front), and cast my vote in his favor. Calling me a liberal mole, an idiot, not a conservative, etc. will not change these facts about Scott Brown. You will have to face them and make decisions about how to deal with them, and that’s much better done before the election than after.
So I’m a little further to the right than you. So what? That doesn’t make my positions or views any less valid than yours. If you have a position on Scott Brown’s level of constitutionality, by all means voice it. You haven’t ever seen me call chappy names when we have had these arguments (not to my memory anyway, but boy is it tempting, as I’m sure you all know). You haven’t seen me engage in name-calling on this thread, either. All of that activity has come from others who wished to silence me as if they were part of ObamaNation. So much for spirited debate of a legitimate issue, I guess.
So call me whatever you want. Just remember who I am when you do it, and that my beliefs are in line with Madison and Jefferson. Are you prepared to call Thomas Jefferson or James Madison and “idiot” or a “mole” or someone who “hacked MM’s blog”? Also remember that you need me more than I need you. I have the truth on my side, and the truth will always prevail in the end. That’s why I have faith in all of you. You will learn what I have at some point or another. Sooner is better, but later will suffice. Remember this as well: When I was a LOTE voter, I did NOT engage in this liberal war tactic. I debated, thought, debated some more, and thought some more, but NEVER did I call a fellow conservative names or demonize him in any way.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
RWR…why do you feel the need to justify yourself so much? Your constant lecturing to those of us who are already conservatives is rather off-putting. It just feels like you are being condescending and know so much more about everything than the rest of us. Your last post was a HUGE, incredibly lengthy lecture, preaching to the choir. You act like the rest of us are uninformed and, well, stupid when in fact, the posters here are some of the most informed and intelligent people you will ever meet.
LOL!!
Good one, HS!
Short, to the point, and dead-on accurate!!
Not justifying – defending.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I was apparently NOT “preaching to the choir”. Even YOU forced me to defend myself against baseless personal attacks. YOU are the one who said I was “off the deep end” for correctly pointing out that Scott Brown and the majority of those allegedly representing us were trashing the Constitution. You asked for examples, and I provided them. You didn’t dispute any of my points, but continued the personal attacks.
Get off it already. I point out that this guy isn’t the second coming of Ronald Reagan like he’s being portrayed, and I’m crucified by those on my own side – for simply bringing this to the fore, which NEEDS to happen. If Massachusetts voters go to the polls without sobering up first, they’re going to be in for a HUGE disappointment once Scott Brown screws them from the floor of the Senate, which WILL happen.
I want Scott to win. I just don’t want him to win on false pretenses, which I sincerely fear is about to happen.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Yeah, you’d know all about “false pretenses”.