Coakley, Brown, and Fox FUD
This senate race to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat has been a surprise. Everyone expected the Democrat – Martha Coakley – to walk away with it. Martha seemingly thought so as well and ran a terrible “campaign” – sleep walking through the process until she woke up in a panic a couple of weeks ago when Scott Brown started getting some significant momentum. After waking up, Coakley ran some pretty negative, yet accurate ads that turned a lot of people off. So here we are with a close race.
I have to admit that I’m very surprised at the amount of support Brown has in progressive Massachusetts. Personally, I think much of it is a reaction to FUD – Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt – being whipped by those “fair an balanced” pantheons of journalism over at Fox News, nutboy Rush Limbaugh, and the current king of crazy talk Pat Robertson. I take that back. Robertson and Limbaugh are the co-kings of crazy talk.
If you’re afraid, look at the issues and pick your candidate. Generally, if you are a far-right conservative vote for Brown. If you are a progressive Democrat, a centrist, or a far left liberal, vote for Coakley. It’s just that simple. Here are a few articles that compare the two on issues:
Go make your own choice and know that a vote for Brown is a vote for a highly conservative candidate..
For me, there is no contest. Coakley is getting my vote. I find her positions to be far more in line with my own progressive values. Brown’s positions on the issues I care about are way too conservative and look like a mildly rehashed rerun of the far right conservatives of the Bush era. Like a neo-con in sheep’s clothing. Or rather a neo-con with come-hither eyes beckoning from the glossy pages of a magazine.
.
When it comes to the environment, rights for *ALL*, and the Democratic tradition of giving a voice to the voiceless, Coakley is easily the candidate for me. Brown seems to be a bit of an empty shirt with positions that seem timid and status quo rather than the “bold new leadership” he keeps touting.
.
As I said, be aware that a vote for Brown is a vote for a highly conservative Republican that will probably oppose every Obama initiative just for the sake of opposing it – in the same way the Gingrich congress tried to torpedo every Clinton initiative. Change can be scary but I think much of the fear is simply Fox FUD.
.
So if you’re a Coakley supporter – get out and vote. If you’re going for Brown, you can safely stay home since he seems to have sufficient momentum to pull this off. Really. Stay home. And make sure you are voting for Scott Brown and his positions rather than trying to scratch some itch of disillusionment. Vote on the issues – not on the FUD.
On Tuesday I WILL NOT be voting for someone to fill “Ted Kennedy’s seat”, I WILL be voting for someone to be the Senator to represent the people of Massachusetts.
I find you opinion interesting. But from where I stand 90% of the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and avoiding the issues is from the Coakley campaign. I’m waiting for an ad or call that says what Martha Coakley stands for, all I see is a mud slinging candidate.
I find the current complete lack of bi-partisan cooperation in congress disgusting. Congress does not need another mud slinger. One of the biggest reason I will be voting for Scott Brown is the Coakley campaign.
Personally, I think a vote should be cast on the substance of their positions not their campaigns.
As harsh as Coakley’s ads were/are – they are also accurate. Brown has a laissez-faire position on business – that’s french for “do nothing”. He did sponsor the Brown amendment that would “Provide Religious Exemption to Bill Allowing Doctors to Distribute Emergency Contraceptives to Rape Victims”.
Voting for Brown might feel good to scratch whatever itch you have, but when you take a closer look – I think he is a terrible candidate and the wrong man at the wrong time.
” Pending the question on passing the bill to be engrossed, Mr. Brown moved that the bill be amended, in section 4, by adding the following paragraph:—
Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.” – From Mass.gov.
Like I said – ultra-conservative.
Scott Brown – defender of women – white republican women that is – on why Sarah Palin is a good candidate and Barack has questionable parentage.
I could be mistaken… but I recall Ted Kennedy supporting religious exemptions as well.
You could be right on that:
and Kennedy would have been wrong too..
The issue however is not what Kennedy supported, it’s Brown denying or trying to play down what he did. Brown is implying that Coakely’s ads are harsh and untrue. Harsh yes, but not untrue. He did support an amendment that would have allowed medical providers to refuse treatment to rape victims based on religious beliefs.
.
Coakley’s ads are harsh, and true. That’s the point.
I am voting for Brown. The HC bill won’t be good for MA, we already have good universal State healthcare that was initiated in bi-partisan agreement. Cap and trade would further damage our faltering economy. Scott Brown is for a woman’s right to choose (check his position papers) He is not for forcing nuns to preform third trimester abortions. Coakley is not for Massachusetts, she is for Coakley. Face it, Obama has gone way left and has not come through on his campaign promises. Meanwhile here in MA the unemployment rate is 10%, unions are raping our government and our liberal guv raises the sales tax by 25%, and doubles registration fees while giving less back to cities and towns. People are pissed……..
I consider Obama a center leaning progressive. I only wish he was a liberal.
Well, here we are. What now?
My greatest fear is that this will further energize the teaparty morons.
We need to get our act together. If we fail, it’s going to be a lot of conservative crap falling on our heads.
The problem here was health reform. The dumbass dems made it too far-reaching, too complicated, too confusing. My advice: start over and do it one simple step at at a time. For example, we might introduce a bill that prohibits discrimination on pre-existing conditions and LEAVE IT AT THAT. Don’t add anything else (especially pork!) and let the GOP explain why THAT is a bad idea. After that, move on to the next simple step. It doesn’t matter if it takes years – waiting years is better than never getting anything.
Healthcare is one of many issues. The people who voted as if it were a healthcare referendum instead of a Senate election have really lost sight of the big picture.
That said, the healthcare thing has been a disaster and should just be scrapped in favor of something far simple or smaller..
From Keith Olberman
“In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
I guess Rush is a bad guy?
Thank goodness the tea bag movement is national.
Yes – Rush IS a bad guy – http://bit.ly/4JnxYM
There was a time when the people who sided with homophobes and bigots kept a low profile. I think we’re going to see them being far more honest about their core beliefs. All of those folks voted for Brown and are proud of it. As much as I am disgusted by them, they at least voted their principles.
Another group is scared to death of heath reform. The Republicans successfully sold them a pack of lies and they voted against Coakley, not for Brown. I actually heard this comment yesterday: “I don’t like all of Brown’s positions, but he’s only one vote”. Those people knew what they were voting for and against – we may disagree with their analysis, but they did what they think was best.
The final group is the yahoos who had no idea what either candidate stood for. Whether they are in agreement or not, they voted from ignorance. I saw plenty of that, unfortunately.
But – we need these corrections. If the country were run by loony liberals like me, there would be a lot of very unhappy people – probably unhappy enough to become violent extremists. If the Rush Limbaughs of the world took over, people like you and I might be forced underground, bitterly clenching our jaws lest we speak improperly and suffer the consequences. The constant tugging from both sides is what keeps the political pendulum somewhat near a place most of us can accept – we may not be happy with everything, but we aren’t driven to violence. So, overall this is a good thing even if I choke a bit saying that.
As much as I think Scott Brown is a run-of-the-mill far right conservative anti-abortion homophobe, I wouldn’t say the same about many of his supporters. Most of the votes he got, IMO, where not votes for Scott Brown but rather votes against health care.
I leave it to the masses to judge the wisdom of treating a Senate race like straw poll on healthcare.
Certainly, I agree. Most votes were simply against Coakely. If it had only been the committed teaparty crowd, or only the homophobes, he wouldn’t have been elected. Not in MA, anyway.
I just hope the teaparty crowd realizes this. Electing Brown does NOT mean the masses are with you.
Keep thinking that way (that the result of this race is due to a vote against Coakley). That’s exactly the mentality that propelled Scott Brown into first place.