About This Blog
There is an interesting Senate election taking place in Massachusetts, one that could have major implications on whether or not the massively unpopular ObamaCare health reform legislation is unilaterally rammed through by the Democrats in Congress. The special election is tomorrow, when either the Democrat, Martha Coakley, or the infidel, er, I mean, the Republican, Scott Brown, will take over the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy's death. Normally, a Republican would have as much chance of winning that Senate seat as a black man would have of becoming a Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, but something is up in Massachusetts, a state that is bluer than blue (and sadder than sad, as Crystal Gayle would sing). Even though only 12% of Massachusetts voters are Republicans, while 37% are Democrats, the Republican Scott Brown has a narrow lead in the polling. The election could go either way.
How could this be happening, in Taxachusetts of all places ? That's a poser, alright. There is no doubt that Coakley is the better choice. Here she is being interviewed by a reporter for the Weekly Standard:
That's the reporter on the ground in the bottom right hand corner of the photo, after he was pushed down by a Coakley thug while daring to ask the rightful heir to Ted Kennedy's throne a couple questions. Clearly, Coakley is a woman of the people, kinda like Evita. No word yet on how many pairs of shoes Martha Coakley owns.
Coakley also has a clear grasp of the issues, as exemplified by her groundbreaking statement that there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan. Apparently, Coakley believes that the rising number of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan in 2009 were all committed by disgruntled postal workers or something. I really can't say.
A Coakley attack ad even misspelled the word Massachusetts. The Coakley version was 'Massachusettes.' Dan Quayle could not be reached for comment on his 'potatoe' farm. I'm waiting for Coakley to become a national joke for the next twenty years, but that probably won't happen. After all, Coakley is not an infidel, er, I mean, a Republican, so the standards are different.
Trying to prove how her ethical standards rival those of her predecessor, Senator Kennedy, Coakley even has her own version of Chappaquiddick. In the Coakley version, nobody lost their life, which gives her an ethical leg-up on Kennedy, but Coakley did knowingly seek to keep an innocent man in prison for political gain. That man's name was Gerald Amirault, who was falsely imprisoned for sexual abuse. Here was Coakley's contribution:
And that’s where ambition-driven District Attorney Martha Coakley enters the picture. By 2001, no person with two brain cells to rub together believed that the prosecution of the Amiraults was anything other than a travesty of justice. But Coakley, placing more value on defending the infallibility of her office and on appearing tough on crime than on seeing that injustice be rectified, embarked on a public-relations crusade to keep Gerald Amirault behind bars. As a result, Gerald languished in prison for another three years.
Nice. That's who we want in the Senate, a person who puts political aspirations above justice. Come to think of it, Coakley will fit right in.
The Democrats are so worried that Scott Brown might pull off a miracle upset in Massachusetts (Brown is up 5 points in the latest poll) that they sent in their big gun - none other than the light-skinned President with no negro dialect unless he wants one, Barack Obama. The President described the situation:
"Understand what's at stake here: It's whether we're going forward or going backward," Obama told a crowd of 1,500 at Northeastern University. "As much progress as we've made, I can't do it alone."
Beyond the silliness of Obama's 'my way or the highway' position on health care reform, this is a bit of a curious strategy for Obama to take, seeing as how Massachusetts voters are firmly AGAINST ObamaCare (by 15 points), as is the rest of America.
It is the consensus that Scott Brown has decisively won the debates with Coakley, in part explaining how Coakley went from over 30 points ahead in november to trailing now, a stunning turnaround. It seems once people looked past the word 'Democrat' on Coakley's resume, they didn't much like what they saw, even when the debates contained such fair and unbalanced question as the following one from the fairly unbalanced moderator David Gergen, who acted as if Scott Brown was, as I said before, an infidel. Here's the arrogant question from Gergen, along with the complete takedown of Gergen in the answer from Republican Scott Brown:
CNN senior political analyst David Gergen had to be reminded of this fact [that Democrats are not entitled to Senate seats] Monday as he moderated a debate between the two candidates for Massachusetts's open Senate seat. He asked Republican candidate Scott Brown whether he'd be willing to " sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and [say] I'm going to be the person who's going to block it [liberal health care policy] for another 15 years."
But Brown, refusing to take for granted Gergen's blatantly left-wing premises, responded instead: " Well, with all due respect it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
Obviously, the infidel Brown doesn't think like a liberal. He doesn't know about the Democrats entitlement mentality. He has the audacity to think the voters should decide.
All I can say is, if Brown wins, thereby breaking the filibuster-proof majority of the Democrats in the Senate, then we'll see just how democratic the Democrats really are, and we'll see how many of them will risk losing their own Congressional seats to pass an ObamaCare bill against the wishes of the American people. Should be interesting. The economic woes of Massachusetts are causing many there to wake up, and they've been trying to shake off that Taxachusetts label. In addition, Massachusetts has seen firsthand what happens when the government mandates universal health coverage, promising to lower premiums and reduce costs. RomneyCare in Massachusetts has accomplished neither, and even Mitt Romney himself says it would be a bad model for the country to follow.