Banner ad

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Just how clueless is Martha Coakley?

Even if you are a Democrat, you have to be discouraged by your candidate in Massachusetts. Where to start?

Via Hot Air, and Gateway Pundit, this is a killer clip in her response to a question about Afghanistan. Here is the transcript of her answer.
I am not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the vision in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They are gone, they are not there anymore, they are in apparently Yemen and Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is.”
Think about that. A week and a half after eight CIA agents were killed by a terrorist in Afghanistan, this noodle-head states in public that the terrorists are gone from Afghanistan. If that were true, why worry about our forces being over there? It should be a walk in the park for them. And does she understand about porous borders? The woman has no grasp of the world situation.

Do we need one more Senator who is this clueless?

This is from a woman who cites, as her foreign policy experience, that her sister lives overseas. It's not quite "I can see Russia from my house" but then that was Tina Fey not Sarah Palin.

And how much of a surprise it that the State Police Association of Massachusetts, the Commissioned Officers Association of the Massachusetts State Police endorsed Scott Brown. She's the attorney general for the state and her husband is the former deputy police superintendent for Cambridge. I wonder if that's the same police department that Obama was so quick to say had messed up with Henry Louis Gates. Sure the State Police Association might have backed Republicans sometimes in the past, but might you not expect that, with that background, the police groups would be supporting her?

You can tell the Democrats are panicking, but all they seem to have in their bag of tricks is the same old attempts to link any Republican to the most unappealing figures that they can come up with. So they tie Brown to Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, and Palin. Byron York reports on how all their handpicked media guy sent to help out the Coakley campaign can do is send out email after email asking why Sarah Palin isn't campaigning for Brown in Massachusetts. Is that the issue that Massachusetts is concerned about - the non-presence of Sarah Palin.

And she's got a negative ad up criticizing Scott Brown for a provision he'd sponsored in the state senate to allow those medical workers who had moral objections to abortion to be allowed to recuse themselves from providing the morning after pill or abortion to rape victims, if there was a hospital plan to help the woman obtain those services from someone else. The amendment failed and he ended up voting for the bill without that provision. In Coakley's version that becomes an accusation that he wants to deny medical care to rape victims. However, as William Jacobson points out, the same Harry Reid Senate health care bill that Coakley promises to support contains a very similar provision to allow a religious conscience exemption from providing abortions. And there is no exception for providing those abortions to rape victims. So by her logic, she is also for denying medical care to rape victims.

And that is not even getting into the wonderful gaffe from her campaign's having misspelled Massachusetts in their first version of the ad. I guess they don't have spellcheck at the Coakley campaign.

And isn't it priceless, that David Gergen, who has been ponderously spouting the CW for decades, was the one to provide that wonderful opportunity for Scott Brown to deliver the zinger of the night. If you haven't watched the video yet of Scott Brown telling Gurgle that it's not the Kennedy seat or the Democratic seat, but it's the people's seat, do yourself a favor and watch the clip. Robert Costa thinks that Brown's jab back at Gurgle is similar to Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone!" line in the 1980 New Hampshire debate. Gergen has been a tool for so long, that it's a delight to know that he will live on in youtube hits as people watch Scott Brown expose him for his biased moderation and overall stuffy fatuousness.

Even Gergen admires how Brown answered that question.
“He stuffed me on that,” said Gergen.
He even acknowledges that the election might not, gasp, be about Teddy Kennedy.But he still thinks that Coakley came across as more “as more accessible as a person.” Check here for the differences in questions that Gurgle posed to Brown and to Coakley.

Jules Crittenden has the story
that the woman who wouldn't ask for bail or even wanted to prosecute the man who raped a 23-month old toddler with a curling iron is, however, getting tough with the ladies' garden clubs.

No wonder the Democrats are sweating and sending out desperation emails telling recipients that the race has become "very tight" and begging for money to take on the evil Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh/Palin Republican.

And the national party has had to rush over half a million dollars to run some more attack ads in Massachusetts. Do you think that they had budgeted to have to spend hundreds of thousands to hold Teddy Kennedy's seat?

And Martha is headed to D.C. tonight to rake in more money from lobbyists. As the WSJ comments about her night with the lobbyists,
Against overwhelming public opposition, the only things keeping ObamaCare alive at this point are power politics and the misguided corporate cease-fire that Democrats have either coerced or bought—or is homegrown at companies like Pfizer that are deeply invested in more government control of the economy. Ms. Coakley's election would make that outcome a certainty.
And they're so desperate that the SEIU is paying members $50 to go hold signs supporting Coakley. Michelle Malkin has the video of a guy admitting that he's getting paid to hold the sign, but he's planning to vote for Brown anyway. It's a safe bet that none of those holding up Brown signs were getting paid. However, his employer, SEIU is spending over $600,000 bashing Brown on abortion and climate change and Sarah Palin. Don't they realize that people's concerns are the economy, stupid. I guess they don't have anything positive to say about Coakley there so they have to stick to their old standby taunts.

Reportedly, at last night's fund-raiser, Coakley reportedly told the lobbyists in attendance,
"If I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race."
As my mother used to say, from her mouth to God's ears.

And they're right to worry, judging from today's newest Rasmussen poll results. A week ago Coakley was up by 9 in the Rasmussen poll; this week, she's up by only 2 points. And he's killing her among the independents. In fact, among those certain to vote, Brown is up by two.

PPP reports that, in the poll that they did on the race last week, Brown was pulling in 15% of Obama voters and winning among moderates. Those are numbers better than Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie had before their victories in Virginia and New Jersey.

Her negative ad just went up today. Who knows if Massachusetts media will point out that she supports the Senate bill that would also allow a religious exemption for medical workers just as she's attacking Brown for supporting. Maybe her attacks will have an effect and drive down Brown's negatives. She has a week to pull out all the stops of push polls, paid "supporters," misleading negative attacks. Perhaps that will be enough in such a blue state. Perhaps all Democrats need to do is stick their fingers in their ears and whine Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh/Palin in order to get votes. Or just maybe Massachusetts voters are sick of what they've seen in this past year in Washington and are eager to send a message. (UPDATE: It does look like local media CBS and ABC did, at least, have stories about her spelling goof. It's not a good thing when coverage of your negative ad just makes you a joke. However, I'd like them also to expose the fatuity of her attack.)

In all of this campaign, who is more appealing? The guy who is running for "the people's seat" or the woman who thinks that there aren't any terrorists left in Afghanistan?


Skay said...

I wonder how many illegal votes ACORN will deliver?

Pat Patterson said...

Maybe Coakley thought the question was about tourism in Afghanistan not terrorism.

equitus said...

Just what I'm thinking, Skay. I don't think the pollsters yet have a weighting factor for that kind of "turnout."

So Cal Jim said...

Skay -- Just enough illegal votes to justify the Globe's poll numbers.

ic said...

Do you think that they had budgeted to have to spend hundreds of thousands to hold Teddy Kennedy's seat?

No, but that half a million is to buy the people's seat.

tfhr said...

Skay, ic, equitus, So Cal Jim,

Hope n' Change has the answer to your question:

Pat Patterson said...

The latest Rassmussen poll has the two candidates with only a 2% difference. Scott Brown has a huge advatage in the number of independents that are likely to vote but needs very high turnout numbers from the Republicans in the state. The problem there is that the party in Mass has been on death watch for a couple of years now.