Morning Maniac Music for the Volunteers Getting Out the Vote Today

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:00:00 AM EST
Tags: Martha Coakley (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is for all the volunteer campaign workers of both candidates in Mass., trying to get out the vote for their candidate.

While BTD wants Coakely to win, I want Coakely to lose. She's too big a risk. The thought of another career prosecutor bent on the old law and order, crime warrior model, is a bigger threat to me than the possibility of losing the House version of the Health care bill. I'm resigned to the health care bill -- a bill that after all the compromising, bears little resemblance to what we progressives initially envisioned. I am not resigned to a Senator who will arrive in DC with alliances already formed with crime bill pushers like DiFi, Joe Biden, and every victims rights group in the nation. How long till we see a crime bill co-sponsored by Coakely and Jeff Sessions? [More...]

The damage Martha Coakley will do to the Bill of Rights, which was designed to protect the citizen accused, not crime victims, over the course of her Senate career, is potentially enormous. Scott Brown is a fly-by, he'll be gone in 3 years, and the first two, he'll still be learning his way to to the bathroom.

Despite what the polls say, I think the monied special interests in the Dem. party, party leaders from Obama to Bill Clinton, and unions from the SEIU to the labor unions, will pull this one out for Martha. I hope I'm wrong.

But props to the volunteers for both, who care enough to get involved and take it to the streets, knocking on doors to get their voters to the polling places.

The candidate with the best ground game should win, regardless of the polls.

If Martha loses, the Dems should think twice next time before selecting their nominee. Even if she wins, she was a disaster of a candidate.

< FBI Illegally Collected Thousands of Phone Records Through Fake Terror Emergencies | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Morning Maniac Music for the Volunteers Getting Out the Vote Today | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

WSWS: Democrats in crisis over Massachusetts (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Andreas on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 04:32:25 AM EST

Three selected paragraphs from a WSWS article on the Senate race:

Under the undemocratic US two-party system, there is no reflection of the leftward-moving views and aspirations of the broad masses. If the people of Massachusetts were actually voting in a referendum on an even minimally progressive healthcare program--say, the expansion of Medicare to cover every American--there is little doubt they would approve it by a massive majority. Obama gives them no such choice. ...
At least in the short term, the mass disappointment and growing anger toward Obama and the Democrats redounds to the advantage of the Republicans. The perverse peculiarity of the US two-party system is that no matter how often voters express their desire for progressive change, the candidates once in office discard their campaign promises and ignore the views of the voters, in order to serve the interests of the financial-corporate elite. However bitter the internecine rivalry between the two parties, there is little in the way of substantive differences dividing them.
The fact that the Democrats have so much difficulty beating, and could even lose to a run-of-the-mill right-wing politician in the most liberal US state is a testimony to their bankruptcy and political duplicity.

Obama, Democrats in crisis over Massachusetts Senate race
By Patrick Martin, 19 January 2010

Martha Coakley is a spectacular progressive (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by No Blood for Hubris on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:09:40 AM EST

candidate, a fact which has been obscured by a torrent of Psychic-Scream-style propaganda.

Initially, I supported Coakley because of her excellent record on domestic violence and child abuse, but when I met her in person, and heard what she had to say, I was bowled over.

Those who think that passioante progressive Coakley is no better than Brown have been infected with the "Bush is Gore" viral mindset, which resulted in the death of millions.

Not only is she better than Brown, she is a superior candidate. It will be our loss, and our fault, should she lose.

"Spectacular Progressive?" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:35:14 AM EST

a la Bill Clinton and that bastard crime bill he signed?

I wouldn't throw accusations of a viral mindset infection arond if I was you my friend..."spectacular progressive"...wow. If the D record on criminal justice and crime issues the last 30 years is progress, I think we need to regress a bit.

These very issues and concerns are reason number # 1 I turned on Team D...when I was a wide-eyed half-commie teenager I thought Bill was the sh*t..my old man said D's are for us and R's are for them so we're good with Bill at the wheel...then I started paying attention to the prison population...if that sh*t is progressive and right I decided I wanna be wrong...please leave me out of your utopia full of caged human beings.


Of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:37:49 AM EST

course, she's a progressive because you have to realize that progressive means whatever you want it to mean these days. Bailing out banks is "progressive".


Coakley worked against banks and for MA (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by noholib on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:30:23 AM EST

Coakley did not bail out banks.
To set the record straight:

May 11, 2009 - For immediate release:

Attorney General Martha Coakley and Goldman Sachs Reach Settlement Regarding Subprime Lending Issues
Goldman agrees to provide approximately $50 million in relief to homeowners, pay additional $10 million to state; AG to continue with investigation of securitization practices in the industry.

Yes, IMO, this is progressive!


: I know (none / 0) (#54)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:39:07 AM EST

what you mean.

I see... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:28:05 AM EST

"progressive" in the "freedom is slavery" sense...got it.

I wish that new edition of the newspeak dictionary would arrive so I'd be up to snuff on this stuff. Double plus good.


Too bad we (none / 0) (#11)
by JamesTX on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:02:39 AM EST

can't even get criminal justice into the debate. They have the working class completely stumped on that one. They use their TeeVee to keep us arguing about things that are irrelevant while they continue to take away Constitutional protections against use of the criminal justice machinery for corporate gain, fiat, and extortion.

Health care doesn't matter if you are convicted felon. You're not getting any anyway. Nor are you getting a job, even if there were any. They are steadily working on ramping up the criminalization of poverty.

I hate to say it, but the Murkin people are going to get what the asked for and deserve. And they are going to get it soon. I think it is a shame they get to destroy the rest of us in the process of their foolery.

You guys making $500k plus enjoy the future!


Maybe the prosecutorial class... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:30:09 AM EST

thinks of it as a full-employment program...keep locking people up until there is a high-paying paper-pushing do-nothing job for every non-caged person. We can always use chain-gangs to come and scrub our toilets.


: That... (none / 0) (#60)
by JamesTX on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:50:09 PM EST

is exactly what the new criminal justice paradigm is all about. That's why it is so important to them to keep the idea out of populist politics. They know what they are doing. The big computer companies have already built models for them. As they develop the technology to control the movements and activities of people more effectively, it will be used to monitor and confine the working class. The rational will be that we have committed "crimes", but the "punishment" will be "humanitarian" -- "house arrest" with control of all movement by computers and satellites coupled with forced labor.

Well (none / 0) (#39)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:13:28 AM EST

you have to realize that progressive is relative, as the above poster mentioned Clinton was a prosecutors dream president but he's regarded as progressive by some now.


: What on (none / 0) (#55)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:39:36 AM EST

earth are you talking about?

All my criticisms of Clinton centered on civil (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by esmense on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:14:04 AM EST

liberties -- the area in which he deserved the most criticism and got the least.

If the most important reason to vote for Coakley the Dems can come up with is their botched, unpopular, crony capitalist Senate health care plan, their prospects don't look good.

But does it matter?

I no longer expect the Democratic party to lead us out of the economically bleak, repressive, authoritarian, politically stuck wilderness they have worked hand in hand with Republicans to lead us into over the last 30 years.

More and more I'm coming to believe that it already has "happened here" and the Democrats, rather than being a positive force against that development have been willing enablers.

The "hope" Obama offered was a promise to resist, to attempt to turn the tide. But, that promise has already been demonstrated as false.

I no longer believe this state of affairs can or will be changed at the ballot box. I think serious economic disruption and social unrest are inevitably in our future. Today's leaders can't help us through it, today's state of affairs won't stand. But what, and who, comes after?


Did someone ever claim ... (none / 0) (#18)
by Yman on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:02:17 AM EST

... that Bill Clinton was a "spectacular progressive"?

I'd say he was a moderate Dem with liberal leanings on some issues, and he never sold himself as anything but that. Anyone who became disillusioned with him because they thought he lead a "half commie" (or even hard progressive) agenda has only themselves to blame.


: Maybe not spectacular... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:14:57 AM EST

but I've heard him called progressive many times.
No Blood for Hubris called Coakley a spectacular progressive, she reminds me of Bill Clinton when it comes to criminal justice...and thats not good.

I'm for Coakley (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:55:18 AM EST

But blaming the voters is just stupid.


She has some serious flaws in that (none / 0) (#15)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:38:34 AM EST

excellent record. But, everyone has a different threshold for what they believe is fair and reasonable.


I'm frankly baffled (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:42:52 AM EST

at how this is the prosecutor where you chose to draw the line.

In any case, my opinion hasn't changed: it will be a disaster if Brown wins, as seems likely.

And this, by the way, is the day that NJ's (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:49:20 AM EST

own disaster, Chris Christie, takes office.


Do you think... (none / 0) (#20)
by NealB on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:03:25 AM EST

...2009 hasn't been a disaster? It's relative, I suppose. If it's only been major disaster for 20% of us, an average disaster for another 10%, but just a minor disaster for 50%, then for 20% of us it hasn't been a disaster at all. It could have been a major disaster for 30%, average for another 20%, and a minor disaster for 40%, and only 10% would have been spared any kind of disaster at all.

So, give credit to Democrats for keeping the top 20% of us from disaster altogether, and the rescue efforts that have (so far) prevented 80% from major disaster.

I don't know, when I add it up, saying "it will be a disaster if Brown wins," sounds, um, funny.


: Independent issues (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:19:12 AM EST

I still cannot believe you actually think Coakley (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by Angel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:54:37 AM EST

will be a greater disaster than Brown. I've got my fingers crossed for a Democrtic victory today.

It's another snowy day here. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by itscookin on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:06:44 AM EST

By this afternoon getting to the polls shouldn't be a problem, but it is certainly going to affect the "before work" voters. Unless of course, you drive a truck. ;^)

This is what I love about Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:11:02 AM EST

She knows who she is, she is not willing to sell out certain aspects of our liberties that she has spent her life's work preserving. She is not willing to have who she is extorted from her. You will have to find a different way to get er done, because Jeralyn's soul is not for sale :) She is fine with the rest of us working ourselves to death today to get Coakley elected. She will not hold it against us.

: amen (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010