Deval Patrick: “Be Angry, but Channel it in a Positive Direction.”

“Be angry, but channel it in a positive direction. It’s easy to be against things. It takes tough-mindedness and courage to be for something.’’ So said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in his State of the Commonwealth address last night.

With these words Patrick seemed to be offering his analysis on Senator-Elect Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s special election, the results of which were less than 48 hours old as Patrick took the podium. Patrick’s speech also sought to woo the electorate to his agenda and to portray himself as an agent of change.

But if Patrick is, as his words suggest, saying that Tuesday’s results amount to little more than an amorphous “No,” cried out in frustration, he is sadly mistaken.

Patrick’s remarks indicate he doesn’t understand that Scott Brown articulated an agenda. Brown took stands on a variety of issues in this election and he was loud and clear about his beliefs. Brown also displayed “tough-mindedness” by not reacting to the barrage of negative campaigning against him. Instead, he remained focused, positive, and on message. On Tuesday, the majority of the voters endorsed Brown’s “positive direction.”

To suggest that the voters who elected Brown are little more than an angry mob that didn’t understand what they were doing when they pulled the lever for Brown is insulting to the citizens and is just the latest example of the political tin ear that Patrick has displayed during his first three years in office.

For Patrick’s sake, let’s hope that his words are simply a linguistic ploy designed to save face and to avoid saying “I get it and I’ll change.” He could say what he’s saying and still adjust his own approach to government to reflect the more open, moderate, and bipartisan approach articulated by Brown.

Perhaps, however, the Governor really is missing the point. Perhaps he is making the mistake of missing the message simply because he doesn’t like what it said.

If Patrick really thinks that Brown and those that voted for him just two days earlier are just angry, clueless, and solely “against things,” then the Governor may be in for a very tough campaign of his own this year.

“Be angry, but channel it in a positive direction.” That’s exactly what the voters did on Tuesday, Governor.

So How Did I Do? (Part II)

On this morning after the election, there is plenty of analysis going on, and while some ardent but tangential supporters of the political Left are holding on to the idea that Martha Coakley’s loss was all about her, the political professionals and professional analysts seem to understand that something bigger may be afoot. They need not read further than a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll for evidence that Scott Brown’s win yesterday is a symptom, not a cause, of concerns this morning for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. The President would do well to spend some time on this, his first anniversary in office, reflecting on how he wishes to govern for the next three years.

Here at A Third Moment, it’s time to look back at yesterday’s post and ask the ever-important question, how close were my predictions to the results?

Here are the predictions I published yesterday morning, soon after the polls opened in Massachusetts (see previous post):

Voter Turnout: “Right around the 50% mark.”

Brown: 51%
Coakley: 46%
Kennedy: 3%


The actual results are as follows:

Voter Turnout: 54%

Brown: 51.94%
Coakley: 47.07%
Kennedy: 0.99%


Pretty darn close – even better than my primary predictions, I say with all due humility! While my turnout estimate was admittedly rough, I heard a report yesterday that the Massachusetts Secretary of State was predicting a far higher turnout number, so I think my estimate had his (and many others that ranged as high as 70%) beat.

As far as the candidates, I had the 5% margin of victory exactly right and was just a touch off on the actual percentages. My mistake was over-estimating Joe Kennedy’s vote. Frankly, I should have known better, but thought that there would be a higher percentage of voters who logged “protest votes” by selecting neither of the major party candidates. Again, I should have known better in a special election!

The Scott Heard 'Round the World

The numbers are in, and they add up to the biggest election story in Massachusetts in at least 18 years, and a huge national story, to boot.

Scott Brown has won a seat in the United States Senate, the first Massachusetts Republican to do so since 1972. That's 37 years, but who's counting?

When driving past a polling place today, I saw the sign pictured above; that image, to me, captures what happened in this race. Over the past two weeks, particularly, average voters realized that their vote mattered and that they could "send a message" to Democrats, to the President, to every incumbent, and to all of Washington. Citizens who had never been involved got out, voted, and volunteered. Someone made the sign above. I wonder, did they try to get an "official" and professionally printed Brown sign? Was the Brown campaign out of signs? Or did that someone just hit on last minute inspiration to get involved? Whatever the answers, they were good news for Scott Brown.

So, let the analysis begin, and there will be a great deal of it. There are, to be sure, lessons to be learned.

Certainly I suggest that Democrats should learn that "not being George Bush" isn't enough to win. They have to have an agenda, and it must be an agenda the people support. The only Democrat agenda in this race was that of Barack Obama, and its support has dwindled. Martha Coakley failed to communicate a single positive message about her vision. Scott Brown did so articulately and well. Voters chose the clear vision and agenda over the candidate who only seemed to run negative ads about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.

As if getting run over by the Brown Freight Train isn't bad enough, Martha Coakley had better be ready to be thrown under the bus by Washington Democrats, who will not want the race to be seen as a negative referendum on them or their agenda.

Amid rumors that the administration and Congressional leadership had already been discussing a "Plan B" in the event of a Brown victory, President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, today signaled that Obama will distance himself from Coakley and look to blame the candidate, not the political environment created by his agenda.

In an Associated Press story published by the New York Post, when Gibbs was "asked by CBS News correspondent Chip Reid whether the president had expressed any surprise or frustration about the closeness of the race in Massachusetts, Gibbs admitted that Obama was not happy with the current state of play in the Bay state. 'Yes. He was both surprised and frustrated,' Gibbs told the assembled reporters at the daily White House briefing. Asked if the president was angry, Gibbs replied: 'He’s not pleased.'”

That's too bad. Obama and the Democrats would be well served to look at the results of this race and discover what they might learn; how they might adjust to serve the people who elected them. If Massachusetts voters are disenchanted enough to elect a Republican Senator to succeed Ted Kennedy, then any Democrat currently "serving" in Washington can be defeated. They would all do well to listen and adapt, rather then blame Coakley individually for a bad campaign and arrogantly push through whatever they please.

This is not to say that Martha Coakley ran a good campaign. She didn't. Democrats would do well, however, to realize that failure, like success, has lots of parents, and the Obama Agenda and Washington Democrats all had a hand in this loss.

Republicans, too, could learn from this. Scott Brown worked hard and ran a fine campaign. He also benefited from timing, in that voters were ready for his message, but he created some of that openness, too. Brown's victory does not mean that any Republican can win in 2010 or 2012; what it means is that an intelligent, good Republican candidate can win by working hard and earning the victory.

There will be plenty of time for analysis. But tonight, for those who are paying attention, there has been a Scott heard 'round the world.

Election Day: Analysis and Predictions

Here it is: Election Day in the special election for US Senate in Massachusetts. If you are in Massachusetts, you cannot avoid this race as TV ads, Web ads, and phone calls are blanketing the state even more so than the snowfall. Turnout should be high, particularly for this, a special general election held in January.

As I have held throughout the election, voter turnout is key, as each candidate has enough support to win, if they turn their votes out and the other does not. It appears (see Boston Globe story here) that both campaigns are working feverishly to get their voters out, as anyone who has received multiple phone calls may attest. People have reported receiving recorded GOTV (Get-Out-The-Vote) calls from the candidates, from President Obama, Curt Schilling, and others as well as live calls from anonymous phone bank staff.

I am surprised this morning that television ads are continuing. The two campaigns (as well as third party organizations) clearly have more money on hand than they could spend prior to Election Day, when campaign ads traditionally “go dark” and vanish. Between the two candidates and the third parties, they seem to have bought up every available time slot. In my own TV watching of the past couple of days I saw entire commercial breaks with no ads other than those about this race. The saturation of the campaign messages is remarkable.

In an ordinary election, candidates must compete for time slots not only with non-political ads but also with candidates for other races, ballot questions, etc. In this election season, the ads have been all Coakley and Brown, all the time, and to the extent Martha Coakley’s ads have focused more on Scott Brown than on herself, it’s been all Brown, all the time.

To me, the most striking thing about the ads is not just that they have continued into Election Day, but that the Coakley campaign has continued its negative campaign against Brown into Election Day. Conventional wisdom is that you want to finish with only a positive message so that the voters’ last impressions of you are positive. You do not want them remembering that you were slinging mud. Either the Coakley campaign is re-writing the election playbook or their polls show them continuing to lose ground and to run behind Brown. I’m betting it’s the latter.

All the polls in the closing days (see story here) have had Brown continuing to surge; he’s now leading Coakley in just about every poll. My eye test tells me the same thing: lots of Brown lawn-signs out there, not too many for Coakley. Even in their campaigning yesterday, Brown’s body-language seemed confident and energized, Coakley’s stiff and tired. They said the same things, more or less, about the polls: that the one that matters is today. Yet the nuances of their language gave hints of their insider knowledge. Brown said they were taking nothing for granted, Coakley said she didn’t believe the polls. They’ve seen the numbers, both those we’re seeing and their own internal polls, too.

So, what’s going to happen tonight when the ballots are counted?

First, I think turnout will be high, despite the snow that is falling today. My guess is that we’ll be right around the 50% mark. That’s high, and very high given the paltry turnout in the primary and the date on the calendar.

Second, and I’m still at some level shocked to be writing this, but I think we’ll see a Brown win tonight. I’m not writing this with my heart but with my head. The signs are all there as Brown appears to be ahead and surging, doing all the right things while Coakley is running the campaign of someone who is behind. I know; I’ve been on both sides!

More difficult to predict are the results in this race. Conventional wisdom holds that higher turnout benefits Brown, and I believe that’s true. Each side will, it seems, get its hardcore support out. Just by sheer numbers of activists, that will favor Coakley. That hardcore support will get “watered-down,” however, as more casual, independent voters turn out and (at least according to polling) favor Brown. Brown holds a huge lead in polls among Unenrolled (commonly referred to as “Independent”) voters, and the more of them that vote, the better for him. If this were an insider-dominated, small-turnout election with 30% or less voting, Coakley would be a good bet. With 50% turnout (and I’ve heard predictions of much higher turnout than that), this race should go to Brown.

So, as I did in the primary election in a previous post, I will stick my neck out and take a shot at the percentages. Brown will win with 51% of the vote, Coakley finishing with 46%, and Joseph (middle name: “no relation”) Kennedy getting 3%. In Massachusetts, against all odds, this would represent a huge win for Brown.

Starting tomorrow, no matter the outcome, there will be plenty of stories about “what happened” and how it happened; doubtless I’ll take part, once I’ve seen the actual numbers. I will also get a head start on that analysis now.

Regardless of the outcome, Scott Brown has run a tremendous campaign, and deserves credit for that. He has casual voters and political professionals (of both parties) alike believing that a Republican can win in Massachusetts, and that’s a very good thing for us all. Most, if not all, Bay State voters have said, at one time or another, “my vote doesn’t count” because we knew what the outcome would be. That’s not the case in this election. My vote counts. Your vote counts. We’re going to have to wait until all the ballots are counted tonight before we know the result in this race.

Similarly, national campaigns and candidates have routinely skipped Massachusetts because the results were never in doubt. Republicans don’t bother with the Commonwealth and Democrats take it for granted. Wouldn’t it be nice if candidates for President thought they needed to campaign in Massachusetts and our citizens actually got to see and hear them in our neighborhoods?

To the extent this is now a reality regardless of the result, Scott Brown has genuinely done a good thing for Massachusetts. It would be a shame if he were to come up short of winning and people were to think, “Wow, that was close, but in the end, predictable” rather than “Wow, this changes our old perceptions.”

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, has not run a good general election campaign. Initially she herself seemed to take victory for granted, then once she realized the race could be close, has run a negative campaign mostly focused on her opponent rather than on herself. Further, the negative ads run by her campaign and her supporters have been, in my view, not accurate. For instance, one closing message is that Brown would be the deciding vote against healthcare. While Brown has made no secret of his opposition to President Obama’s healthcare plans, he would not, as the “41st” vote against it, stop it. That takes 51 votes, by my math. Forty-one votes against the plan means that the Democrats have to be forthcoming about what they are doing and actually debate and discuss it. They can still pass something, they just have to defend it in the light of day. Why wouldn’t Martha Coakley want that? Food for thought as we all head to the polls.

Unsolicited Advice for Martha Coakley: Don’t Be A Bully

Image: Associated Press

You’re Martha Coakley and you’re running for the United States Senate. You didn’t ask me for my opinions or my advice, but I’m going to give them to you anyway. The first opinion, and I’ll give it to you straight: you’re having a bad week.

Last week was a bad week, too, what with that annoying poll result showing that you had a race on your hands. Your advisors probably even started telling you that you actually had to campaign!

You likely hoped this week would be better but while some polls showed better numbers, others showed the race getting even tighter and one actually had you running behind Scott Brown!

You were, I’m sure, hoping that Monday’s debate might turn things for you, but instead it was the start of another difficult week.

To be fair, some (if not most) of the week’s headaches for you and your campaign are self-inflicted. During the debate on Monday, you said something very ill-advised. You actually said that al Qaeda terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan. "They're gone," you said. "They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan." (If you don’t believe me, Martha, cnn.com has the story here.)

Then, right after the debate, your negative attack ads went on the air. Nasty, misleading and inaccurate ads, if you ask me. You didn’t ask, but that’s my opinion. As the week has gone on, your ads have seemed to me to be more desperate, nastier, and frankly, out-of-touch. If you want to be a Senator in 2010, it’s time to stop running against George Bush and Dick Cheney; that so 2008. And Rush Limbaugh? You’ve got to be kidding; you’re running for the US Senate, not trying to get a radio talk show! You seem to want to run against everyone (or at least all Republicans, as your radio ad derisively says) except Scott Brown. But again, you didn’t ask me!

The kicker was that in your first attack ad, your campaign misspelled Massachusetts! “Massachusettes?” I’m sorry, Martha, are you running for Senator from Indiana? (My apologies to Dan Quayle, I just couldn’t resist, but if the former Vice President had spelled Massachusetts the way the Coakley campaign did, it would have been a bigger story.)

Then, Martha, you made another incomprehensible decision by going to Washington DC for a fund-raiser, I’m betting with lots of lobbyists, on the day after the debate. Who needs to campaign for votes when there’s a week left in the election, right? This decision just dumbfounds me. The Washington donor crowd is a rather professional donor group. I bet that if you explained to these fat-cats that you should stay in state and show that you want the seat by actually campaigning for it, they would have understood and donated anyway!

While you were in DC, things got even worse for you. A reporter had the gall to show up and ask you about your “no terrorists in Afghanistan” assertion from the night before! I know you’re probably used to getting away with these kinds of crazy statements at Democrat Town Committee meetings where no one challenges you, or in the Democrat Primary debates when you need to appease the Far Left Wing of your party. You probably didn’t expect someone to ask you to defend your position, so the exchange went as follows, according to the reporter who asked you the question, and as published in The Weekly Standard:

Reporter: “Attorney General Coakley, you said last night that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan--that they're all in Yemen and Pakistan. Do you stand by that remark?”

Martha Coakley: “I'm sorry, did someone else have a question?”

Again, just my advice, Martha, but ignoring a reporter like that doesn’t tend to generate positive, soft coverage when you need it the most!

This nastiness with the reporter wasn’t even done yet. I know, Martha, you don’t know all the facts of what happened next, although pictures (see AP photo above) and video appear to put you at the scene. The Weekly Standard reporter wound up on the ground, and now an aide of yours has conceded (see story in the Boston Herald), “I was a little too aggressive in trying to help the attorney general get to her car.”

As I say, Martha, I know you don’t know all the details. The Herald quotes you as saying the following: “I know there were people following, including two from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking. I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I’m not privy to the facts.”

Help me understand this, Martha. Are you saying brutish behavior is justified if there are “people” from your opponent’s campaign in the area? Is it justified if the “something occurs,” but only to your opponent’s “people?”

I know you didn’t ask me for my opinion, Martha, but I’d say you need to turn things around, and quickly. This week my perception of your campaign has gone from one that was indifferent and taking the election for granted to one that is desperately trying to keep the wheels from coming off your political wagon. Since Monday (in the debate) I have not heard a single positive message about what you would do in the Senate, but only what’s wrong with a variety of Republicans, including Sarah Palin, for crying out loud!

Meanwhile, Scott Brown has remained calm, cool, and collected, all the while seeming to be a pretty nice guy. People like to vote for nice people, by the way.

I have argued throughout the campaign that this election will come down to turnout, and I still believe that will be the case. No matter what has happened this week or what happens over the next few days, you and Scott Brown each have enough support to get elected, depending on who does a better job turning out your vote.

The problem, Martha, is that, win or lose, I humbly suggest that you don’t want people to think of you as a bully, and this week, in my opinion, that’s exactly what you appear to be.

Yes, We Can

There is less than a week left in the special election for US Senate from Massachusetts, and for the first time in my memory, the Bay State has a competitive final election for a Senate seat.

This in itself is remarkable news. Who would have thought this race would be so tight? After all, this election will determine who succeeds Ted Kennedy, the 37-year veteran of the Senate, who in his nine (yes, nine!) elections to the Senate never won by fewer than 17 percentage points (the closets being his 17-point win over Mitt Romney in 1994).

Until Kennedy’s death last summer, John Kerry was Massachusetts’ “Junior” Senator, having served a mere 26 years in his seat, and having succeeded another Democrat, the late Paul Tsongas.

Edward Brooke was the last Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts (and, incidentally, he was also the first African American from any state to be elected to the US Senate), having been last elected in 1972. To have voted in that election one would have had to have been born 18 years earlier, in 1954. This means that today no one in Massachusetts under the age of 55 has actually participated in an election that resulted in the election of a Republican US Senator. Amazing.

Many of my partisan friends from the Left will respond “Good,” and wish to hold onto the seat for the Democrats. I challenge those folks who think that way to answer honestly, were you among those who said during the presidency of George W. Bush that things were too “partisan?” If so, I ask you to open your own mind and to consider what it might be like if we actually elected Scott Brown this coming Tuesday, putting a Republican in the Senate representing Massachusetts.

Having bi-partisan representation in the Senate would change the view Massachusetts voters have of our political parties and of government. We would hear, with equal spin and credibility, the policy views of each side of the aisle, rather than one being dominant and the other routinely discounted, if heard at all. We would see that there are some issues on which philosophy (or, put cynically, partisan politics) wins out, and on which our two Senators would disagree, but amicably. We would also see that on some issues, what is truly good for Massachusetts would win out, and we would see our Senators from each side of the aisle working together for our Commonwealth. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Having bi-partisan Senate representation might also change the way our Senators (and other elected officials) view their jobs, as well. Neither Republican nor Democrat Senator could hide behind partisan smokescreens on an issue of true importance to Massachusetts. If the two Senators genuinely disagreed, it would be great for the citizens of Massachusetts to hear that conversation, and to do some real thinking of their own as to what they actually believe and think. Wouldn’t that be something?

Note that I referred to a hypothetical disagreement between our Senators as a “conversation,” not a “debate.” Elections are tough ordeals, with harsh words and serious charges often exchanged. Governing well, however, calls for bi-partisan work, and a willingness to come together in discussion around what is truly important. One of the hallmarks of Ted Kennedy’s career was his ability to befriend those across the political aisle, including Senator Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), among others. I have no reason to suspect that John Kerry and Scott Brown couldn’t have a very positive, respectful relationship focused on what is good for Massachusetts, and wouldn’t that be great for our political climate?

I know some will argue that because there is currently a Democrat in the White House Massachusetts is better off with another Democrat Senator. To those folks I offer the reminder that President Obama is up for election in two years, and if a Republican can win in Massachusetts, no seat is safe! We don’t know who will be in the White House in 2013 and beyond; why not hedge our bets and have a Senator from each party?

Most importantly, having Senators from the two major parties will force each to the middle. John Kerry could not afford to be too Liberal, nor could Scott Brown afford to be too Conservative. They would each have to pull their own voting record toward the great middle and, most importantly, the position on each issue that best serves Massachusetts.

So set aside the concerns about party. Set aside all the talk about “the 60th vote for health care” and “the 41st vote against Obama-care;” this is an opportunity to focus our state’s two votes solely on what is good for Massachusetts.

Scott Brown himself is trying out the line that this election would be a “test-drive,” of sorts. He correctly observes that whoever is elected next week will be up for election again in 2012. “Try me out,” he’s saying.

I must say, I’d like to see a little bi-partisan representation.

Our state hasn’t seen it in the US Senate since Ed Brooke.

If you’re under 55, you’ve never really seen it.

Next week, we might all see it.

Best of all, it’s up to us.

We can make it happen.

To borrow a phrase, “Yes, We Can.”

US Senate Debate: Brown-Coakley-Kennedy

In a feisty hour-long debate, the candidates for US Senate from Massachusetts wrangled tonight on issues including terrorism, taxes, healthcare, and abortion.

In the end, lots of heat, but little light, were generated. Particularly in a low-turnout special election, there are very few undecided votes still to be won. Few, if any, minds changed tonight.

Scott Brown and Martha Coakley each criticized the other while defending themselves. Coakley, in particular, found herself often on the defensive and sounding like an Obama Administration spokesperson. For example, Coakley stated early on that health care reform would be “budget-neutral” before conceding, later on, that even the Congressional Budget Office says it would be at least ten years before that might be the case. In another exchange, Coakley supported Obama’s pledge of no new taxes on couples making less than $250,000. The problem with that is that Obama has already broken that pledge.

The only time Coakley split from Obama was over Afghanistan, going so far as to suggest that the US cannot succeed in that war. As Scott Brown was visibly agitated, moderator David Gergen hammered Coakley to make clear her views. This was the most uncomfortable moment of the debate.

It was not the only uncomfortable moment, however. Brown’s attempts to sidestep his past statements on climate change were just as awkward as Coakley’s efforts to sound supportive of the death penalty before conceding her opposition to it.

For her part, Coakley began the debate trying to tie Brown to the Bush-Cheney Administration. She eventually backed off of this effort once Brown said “You’re not running against them, you’re running against me.”

The best moments? There were a few. For Brown, he sounded statesman-like when he said “There’s plenty of blame to go around. I’m not going to be working on the mistakes of the past. I’m looking to address the mistakes of today.”

Brown struck a solid blow against Beltway-insider arrogance. When David Gergen referred to “Teddy Kennedy’s seat,” Brown shot back, “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.” This was the best moment of the debate, and I wanted to stand and cheer.

Coakley had her moments, too. In a self-deprecating moment she told Gergen, “I can be funny, believe it or not!” As if to prove that point, her other high point came when she offered faint praise of Brown, saying, “I think he understands what constitutional rights are about.” That was the funniest line in the whole debate. Well done, Madame Attorney General!

There was a third candidate in the debate, and Joseph Kennedy certainly held his own. While I'm not in agreement with his positions, I daresay he is the most articulate Kennedy to run for US Senate from Massachusetts during my lifetime. Kennedy seemed particularly well spoken when compared side-by-side with Brown, who was so eager to attack Coakley that he stumbled over his words and seemed less than fully articulate, and Coakley, who seemed not to believe her own strained defenses of her party’s credibility.

There is one week to go in the race, and it’s going to come down to who turns out their vote. It’s still a horserace, and tonight’s debate was fun, if not in the least bit decisive.

Scott Brown Picks Up State Police Endorsement, Martha Coakley Goes Negative

In advance of tonight's final debate of the US Senate race, Scott Brown has been endorsed by the State Police Association of Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Martha Coakley has today "gone negative" on Brown.

Several polls have come out over the past days showing the race anywhere from a one-point Brown lead to a fifteen-point Coakley lead. Conventional wisdom says you go negative when you're behind, but not when you're ahead, so the guessing here at A Third Moment is that Coakley's internal polls show her in some trouble, either behind or, at the very least, rapidly losing ground to Brown.

Check back here later for some post-debate analysis, but in the meantime, here's the story on Coakley's criticism of Brown:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_goes_on.html

Victoria Reggie Kennedy Endorses Martha Coakley

Martha Coakley is attempting to blunt Scott Brown’s recent momentum with the first significant campaign event I can recall her having since the Democrat unity event the day after the primary. She has also returned to the airwaves with her first general election television ads, with less than two weeks to go in the race.

In an announcement that should surprise no one, Victoria Reggie Kennedy is today endorsing Coakley’s bid for the US Senate. It’s a nice event that is an easy, positive media story for Coakley.

Just because this announcement is not a surprise doesn’t mean it’s not newsworthy. It simply doesn’t rise to the level of a “major endorsement,” given that we’ve known all along that the Kennedy clan would be with the Democrat nominee, whoever that person turned out to be. Acknowledging their active support does not change the underlying dynamics of this race, however.

A few have gone so far as to suggest the endorsement could be a negative factor, spinning this as a sign that “the Washington establishment” is behind Coakley at a time when incumbents are running scared. This argument is absurd. Any time the widow of a long-serving member of Congress offers you her endorsement to succeed her husband, you take the endorsement. I worked a special election campaign in 1991 to succeed US Rep. Silvio Conte and we happily accepted his widow’s endorsement although there was little surprise there, either. By the way, we used “no one can fill his shoes, only walk in his footsteps” back then!

The bottom line, as I’ve argued in previous posts, is that this election remains about turnout. An endorsement such as this one would potentially be more significant in a regularly-scheduled general election when casual voters participate in high numbers; casual voters might be swayed by this type of association. This election, however, will be dominated by hard-core committed voters on both sides, many of whom have long known for whom they would vote. This endorsement won’t sway any of them.

What this might do is give Coakley a reprieve from the negative press of the past couple of days (see previous post here) and instead give her a day or so of nice soft, news stories. Then she needs to get to work identifying and turning out her vote. What this week’s Rasmussen poll showed was that Brown and Coakley each have enough support to win, depending on whose voters go to the polls on January 19.

What Martha Coakley’s Friends Are Saying

The special election campaign for US Senate in Massachusetts has gotten significantly more interesting over the past 24 hours. First, news of a poll that puts the race closer than many believed (see previous post here) and now, a column by Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe that calls Democrat Martha Coakley out on her attempts to avoid debates with her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, and thereby deny Massachusetts voters a full airing of the issues and the candidates’ stances.

McGrory’s piece is worth a full read as he really lets Coakley have it (and also gives a whack to my hometown along the way). Snippets include the following:

“Coakley's overriding strategy is to quietly back into the job, to have you, the voter, know less about the major candidates rather than more…She's counting on voters, knowledgeable or not, to reflexively pull the Democratic lever….The Volvo drivers from Lincoln and Concord lap this stuff up with a spoon…This is all part of a Coakley pattern.”

For the Globe, long a left-leaning editorial paper, to publish this, says a lot. As the old saying goes, “With friends like these…”

Here is a link to the full piece:

McGrory: Where's Martha Coakley? - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe


Posted using ShareThis

The Homestretch in the US Senate Election, and We’ve Got a Race

Welcome to visitors from Facebook. Please bookmark the site and come back again!

A poll conducted yesterday of voters likely to vote in Massachusetts’ special election for US Senate (to be held on January 19) puts the race closer than many would have expected. With two weeks remaining in the campaign, the poll has Republican State Senator Scott Brown trailing Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley by only nine points, 50-41.

Web stories on the poll have been run today by both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.

Nine points may sound like a big lead and this may not seem to be a big story to some, but in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, having a Republican that close to the Democrat two weeks out is newsworthy, particularly in a special election.

This election will hinge on turnout. According the Globe story, the pollster stated that among those individuals “absolutely certain” to vote, the numbers were even tighter, and suggested a lower turnout favored Brown. I’m not so sure about that. It really will come down to who votes rather than how many people vote. If Brown has spent time these past couple of months building a voter turnout machine that successfully gets his vote out, he could have a shot at this.

The good news for Coakley is, of course, being ahead, but also being at 50%. Conventional wisdom states that once a candidate breaks the 50% barrier, they are hard to beat as that entails “peeling away” some of their support. Again, however, that is for a normally scheduled regular election. Coakley still has to turn out her own vote for these numbers to materialize.

The bottom line? We’ve got a real race here for these next two weeks. It should be fun to watch!

Sunday Morning Roundtable V

This week I'm trying something a little different with the roundtable. Instead of putting out a topic for readers' opinions without giving my own opinion, I'll let you know my view first, and then whether you agree, disagree, or think I'm crazy, have at it!

This week the heat increased on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for her comments in the aftermath of the Christmas Day attempted bombing of a plane heading for Detroit. The controversy began when Napolitano stated that "the system worked" in the (thankfully) botched bombing incident.

I say it's time for Janet Napolitano to go. What "worked" in this incident was the American people who were on Board the Northwest flight on Christmas Day. If the system worked, the accused terrorist never would have boarded the plane. Napolitano's failure to understand that is a failure to understand her job.

Napolitano was previously most infamous for her suggestion that the word "terrorism" be replaced with "man-caused disasters." This, too, shows, a complete lack of understanding of her role. Leave political correctness to the President (if he must). It's the job of the Homeland Security Secretary to speak plainly, directly, and honestly in assessing threats and protecting Americans. It's time for a new Secretary who can do that. There's a lot of work to be done to improve communications in our security infrastructure and it will take a serious and capable Secretary to lead the effort.

What do you think?

Caught with His Hand in the Cookie Jar

Thirteen state Attorneys General are threatening to file suit over the constitutionality of the US Senate's "health care" bill. At issue is the provision added to get the 60th Democrat, Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska), on board. The provision exempts only the state of Nebraska from Medicaid payments totaling $100 million. Who pays Nebraska's tab? The US taxpayers, of course.

Bravo to these thirteen AGs. This bit of pork is Washington at its worst; the Senate Democrat "leadership" using taxpayer money to buy the vote it needed to cut off debate and ram through their bad bill.

What's sad is that only Republican Attorneys General are on board with this potential lawsuit. Democrat AGs are more loyal to their party than to their taxpayers or to common sense, apparently.

One Democrat that should join the suit is Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley. Coakley could make some Good Government/Outsider points in her US Senate race by standing up to this outrageous Pork Provision. She'll never do that, however. She already has learned to play the Washington game, as discussed in a previous post.

It's also worth noting that Nelson, with his hand caught in the cookie jar, can only come up with a defense of "it wasn't my idea." That, if true (as reported in the linked story below), is sad. Whether his idea or not, this Medicaid provision is deplorable and every Washington Democrat that supports it should be ashamed of themself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/02/senate-dem-asks-south-carolinas-attorney-dogs/?test=latestnews

New Year's Day

Of the various songs titled (or about) New Year’s Day, this one is my favorite. Just some C&W fun:

New Year’s Day
Music and lyrics by Charlie Robison

Well, I woke up early Sunday morning

Had myself a piece of toast
Had fifty dollars in my pocket
Gonna chase myself a ghost

Went down Camino Espinoza
Gonna get me a divorce
Gonna split with all my money
See that girl who loves a horse

It's New Years Day here on the border
And it's always been this way
I never do the things I oughta
Think I'll stay its New Year's Day

I met them boys there from O'Connor
Cowboy like you never seen
They're up for anything you want to
Live on steak and refried beans
They bought up half of southern Texas
It's why they act the way they do
When them boys meet me in Laredo
They think they own Laredo too

It's New Years Day here on the border
And it's always been this way
I never do the things I oughta
Think I'll stay its New Year's Day

I know a girl here in Laredo,
Her name's Pussy Willow Rose
She got that ring around the collar
Got that ring stuck through her nose
She works there at the Dallas Cowboys
But she's got no in between
Like all them other boys in dresses
They ain't every cowboy's dream

It's New Years Day here on the border
And it's always been this way
I never do the things I oughta
Think I'll stay its New Year's Day


Listen to the song here