Morning Maniac Music for the Volunteers Getting Out the Vote Today

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    or waste breath or bandwidth arguing about it.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:11:43 AM EST
    it is nice to see someone who is not on board with the end of the world scenarios if she loses.

    I still think she may win.  its always about the ground and today the ground operation, with snow and ice everywhere, is going to be critical.  and the fear of god has been placed into the hearts of the democrats.

    And it's only a two-year term (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    or so for either one, not the usual six-year term that will be more worrisome for Dems in regular elections.  And either way, with this close call, it could be a wakeup call to watch more closely and not wait so late to see uncertainty in "sure things" such as the "Kennedy seat."  But then, the elections in 2000, 2006, and 2008 -- and a few before in not-so-distant memory -- ought to have been sufficient warning.

    Pollster John Zogby (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    I am torn (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:34:09 AM EST
    A Coakley loss would in my view be the best hope Democrats have of staving off bigger losses in November.  A loss might, repeat might, reuslt in Obama, Reid, Pelosi & Co. answering the wake up call to address the desires of the base, i.e., progressives.  It is, sadly, also at least equally likely Dems would in response to a Coakley loss capitulate to the GOP even more.

    A Coakley win, even a narrow one, would problaby be seen by Obama and Congressonal leaders as affirmation of their policies and politics.  Positive reinforcement of negative behavior is a dangerous thing.  It might mean for Democrats winning the battle (Mass Senate) and losing the war (Nov elections).

    We live in a world where all things military, prosecutorial, police etc are reflexively viewed as sacred and presumptively to be accepted whatver the proposition might be.  Another prosecutor, general or flag-waving war-hawk in power is nearly always dissappointing to me.  Folks in these professions or with these beliefs are all too human, often espousing "patriotic," "moral," or "tough on crime" positions simply to scare and then pander to fearful voters.  Not anything readers here don't already know, but the cumulative effect of these pols continues to eviscerate our Constitutional republic.

    I guess I am indifferent to her winning or not, which should scare Democrats because with the sole exception of a one time vote for John Chafee, I never vote to send a Republican to DC.

    I don't think a win (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    would be an excuse for gloating.

    An "affirmation of Dem policies" in MA by a tiny margin is NOT a good thing.

    Brown is pro-torture, anti-gay, anti-choice, flat-tax, right-wing conservative who attacked Coakley for being "soft on crime".  Sending him to the senate is NOT a good thing.

    Aslo, Coakley is not a war hawk.  And she is on the left of the vast majority of Dem senators.


    Wouldn't a Coakley loss (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    more logically push Dem's to the right- I mean obviously Obama et al will see they've been far too liberal and take a more centrist path.

    Go Coakley! (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    Brown must be stopped. He would be a disaster.

    Three years? (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 07:47:11 AM EST
    the last time the republicans won a special election for Senator in Massachusetts they held the seat for 34 years from 1945 to 1979.

    Yeah, 'cause a repeat of (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by me only on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    Edward Brooke would be an unmitigated disaster.

    Hard to remember... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by NealB on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    ...there was a time when Republicans weren't all dicks.

    Very interesting email (none / 0) (#16)
    by smott on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:41:11 AM EST
    I got last night from my employer, a small IT startup in Mass (I work remotely in PA)...hardly a firm with Republican interests...reminding us to vote, and to bear in mind that the excise tax included in the HCR bill, should it pass, may significantly affect the Co's ability to continue offering health benefits in their current form.


    Additionally, the MSNBC stock market reporter, (none / 0) (#17)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    when asked about the effect of the election on Wall Street on Morning Joe, said that a Brown win would send the market up, ESPECIALLY for health care and health insurance stocks.

    I thought stocks (none / 0) (#19)
    by smott on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    ...for private insurers went up to 50-year highs when the Senate version passed last month...

    So private insurers will do well if the bill passes, and if it doesn't?....

    Or does this mean if Brown gets in there will be even further concessions to sweeten the pot for private industry?


    Don't know what's up...I take it to mean that Wall (none / 0) (#25)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:12:48 AM EST
    Street would react favorably the end of the health care bill?

    or would react favorably to a perceived Obama defeat?

    I buy lottery trickets, not stocks.


    Compared to the rest of the stock market (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    2009 was average at best for health care stocks and my health care mutual fund (VGHCX) was a comfortable last behind my other funds. I expect a turnaround in that area should this election go to the GOP.

    the village idiots (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    are all on the same page it seems in saying that all that is left for the democrats to do, if she loses, is to "make" the house pass the senate bill.

    that could be fun to watch.

    Question (none / 0) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:20:58 AM EST
    How much influence did team Obama exert to get her the nomination? Why wouldn't they (or whoever)have looked for someone that could fill the shoes of "the most liberal Senator" in the country?

    This also raises the point of terminally ill politicians resigning while they have the power to control the replacement process.

    Well, one could argue that Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    lost the right to the "most liberal senator" title in recent years (for example, by supporting No Child Left Behind and then by supporting Obama).  Also, one could argue that Coakley ran on a more liberal platform than her competitors in the primary (she was anti-war, anti-healthcare bill if it codified second class citizenship for women, and the most anti-wall street of the bunch).

    For me, though, the reason I just went and voted none of the above is that this is a rare chance for citizens to actually have something of a direct vote on an important issue in congress.  Coakley said she would vote for a healthcare bill that not only doesn't achieve it's stated goals, but also further codifies economic unfairness and second class citizenship for women into federal law.  Voting for Coakley equals voting for that bill, and I couldn't in good conscience do that.


    So you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:20:59 AM EST
    Kennedy should have supported Kucinich or what? To argue Kennedy wasn't the most liberal Democratic Senator is to invite credulous stares (Sanders is an independent).

    If you want to try to convince me (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:25:17 AM EST
    and everyone here that No Child Left Behind and an Obama presidency are liberal, then knock yourself out.  I don't see how you're going to do that while keeping the facts on your side, though.

    Kennedy supported NCLB (none / 0) (#50)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44:26 AM EST
    when it had extensive funding, he supported Obama because he saw him as the most liberal of the Democratic frontrunners (though obviously less liberal than someone like Kucinich).

    As I recall, Sen. Kennedy supported (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    Sen. Obama because Kennedy saw Obama as the reincarnation of JFK.

    And (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    If you believe Ambinder et al in their new book, Kennedy supported Obama because he felt the Clintons dissed his brother's memory.

    Getting an additional (none / 0) (#44)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    20 million plus on Medicaid would be so horrible, god knows those poor people should contiune to do without so we can be pure.

    Coakley wasn't the choice (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by itscookin on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    of the Democratic Party. Their choice was Mike Capuano. The Democratic voters and the independents who chose to a Democratic ballot in the primary rejected the party's chosen candidate, and the race wasn't close. Coakley 47% Capuano 28%

    Not sure (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18:57 AM EST
    all I know is that on here not one week ago I had people tell me that Obama wasn't pushing hard for Caokley because she was a Hillary supporter, and now I have some of those same people telling me that Obama's trying to put a rubber stamp in place- its almost like for some people the end result is always  the same regardless of the actual facts of the matter.

    Mirror image (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    taking hold of the way the right wing argues things.  Logic and facts have no place.  Maintaining the storyline is everything that matters.

    Life is not static (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    nor are campaigns.  Cope.

    "Team Obama" (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    was behind her primary opponent, Capuano, as was "Team Kennedy" and every other establishment Dem. team.  She beat the pants off of them.

    You can't just make stuff up to suit your preferred narrative.

    Also, Martha Coakley may not be a "spectacular progressive" as claimed above, but she's farther left than all but a handful of current Dem. senators, so you're out to lunch on that part, too.

    Lastly, Ted Kennedy's close ally got appointed to take the seat temporarily and a quick special election was called.  It's beyond me what you imagine Ted Kennedy could have done to "control the replacement process" beyond that.  Whether you like it or not, the people of Massachusetts get to decide who their senator is, not Ted Kennedy or "Team Obama" or anybody else.



    Apparently (none / 0) (#51)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    a Ghostly Ted Kennedy could have risen from the grave and shot an ad in support of Coakley or something.

    No need for attitude (none / 0) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    Not being from Mass, I merely asked the question of who backed her. Washington has a reputation of interjecting their will in state politics. (I live in Illinis and Alan Keyes was a classic example of the national party dictating to the states).

    If the Democratic voters of Mass picked her, fine. Mass. is a very blue state. She should win hands down then.

    I still don't agree that TK couldn't have played a very important role in the process, if only to campaign.


    The problem was not in the primaries. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    In the primaries, she actually ran the most anti-establishment, most liberal campaign of the four Democrats running.  Unlike Capuano, who voted for the House bill containing Stupak, or the other two (one of whom is a Romney Republican who ran as a Democrat, and the other was trying to an Obama-like hope-n-change campaign), she stuck up for actual liberal principles (as I stated up above, anti-war, anti-wall street, anti-healthcare bill that further codified second class citizenship for women).

    The problem only came when she flipped from a liberal agenda to Obama's agenda.  And that pleased no one.  It fired up the Republicans and libertarians, and it demoralized the liberals.  No doubt there was a lot of pressure on her from the national party to do this, and the irony is palpable, but it is what it is.


    Your "question" (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    wasn't much of a question, it was more of an assertion, which is what I was responding to.  Sorry if you were offended.

    I object vehemently to the idea that Ted Kennedy is somehow to blame for all this.


    I dont think Kennedy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    could possibly have foreseen the clusterf*ck this turned into.

    Really! (none / 0) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:36:08 AM EST
    Having been in the Democratic party all his life, he should have known that if they was a way of screwing up a good thing, Democrats would find it!