Grassroots vs. Astroturf

truckloads of signs… one of the union guys holding the Coakley sign, he admitted that his union was paying him $50 to stand and hold the sign.

That is the very definition of astroturfing.

The best part was when he admitted that although he was there because he needed the money, he was voting for Scott!!

Awesome! Even some union members paid to astroturf for Coakley will be voting for Brown!

There couldn’t be a more textbook example of the difference between “astroturf” support (fake grassroots) and true grassroots support than the current state of the Coakley vs. Brown campaigns.

Yesterday Brown raised over $1.3 Million in a truly grassroots fundraising event:

So, where does Coakley go for money? To grassroots? No. To special interest “Fat Cats”:

With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama’s health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is at right (click here for a better view).

Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.

All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.

The Democrat[ic Socialist]s always like to pretend that they are the “party of the little guy”. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Even back in the 2004 election cycle, I noticed that a site called Fundrace.org really liked to display the “Money Index” when in late 2003 the leaders were:

GrassRoots Index
Who gets small contributions from all over America?
#1 Howard Dean

Devotion Index
Who inspires repeat giving and financial sacrifice?
#1 John Edwards

FatCats Index
Who gets large contributions from the wealthiest Americans?
#1 George W Bush

They didn’t like it when, once the race was just Kerry and Bush, the results were:

GrassRoots Index
Who gets small contributions from all over America?
#1 George W Bush

Devotion Index
Who inspires repeat giving and financial sacrifice?
#1 George W Bush

FatCats Index
Who gets large contributions from the wealthiest Americans?
#1 John F Kerry

Those results didn’t fit their agenda, so they removed the link to that page from the main page (and any other page). But, since I had bookmarked the URL, I could still get to it directly.

Who was behind that? Well, it’s very interesting to see that if you type “www.fundrace.org” in your browser, it now takes you to “http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/”

Isn’t that special?

Democrats are not the “party of the little guy”, and they don’t really like transparency.

Much has been said about how Obama promised on no less than 8 occasions that all of the healthcare negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN.  He deceived people into thinking that the Republicans were the ones promoting the interests of Big Pharma and Big Insurance, and he was going to shine the light of transparency on them.

But Obama never intended to keep his C-SPAN promises, because the truth is that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. are the ones who are truly promoting the interests of Big Pharma and Big Insurance, and they don’t want to shine the light of transparency on themselves.   (Coakley’s recent fundraiser with lobbyists from Big Pharma and Big Insurance reveals the truth that Democrats, not Republicans, are the ones working on behalf of the Drug and Insurance companies!)

As I blogged about that back before the 2008 elections, are Democrats “The Party of Regular People?

No.  Democrat[ic Socialist]s are the party that deceptively takes all of their wrong doings and projects them upon “the other guys”, the Republicans.

UPDATES:

Small donor jackpot: Average Scott Brown moneybomb donation was $77.89

Surprise: SEIU places $685,000 ad buy for Coakley

The new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Brown is ahead by two percentage points among those who are absolutely certain they will vote. A week ago, he trailed by two among those certain to vote.

…Senator John Kerry in an emergency fundraising letter for Coakley today says the race is “a dead heat,”…

The party bosses sent in Michael Meehan to help with messaging.  And it didn’t take him long to send a Chicago-style “message”:

And, by her actions, Martha essentially communicated:

“I’m Martha Coakley, and I approve this message”

A pictoral case study of that SEIU slogan:

We prefer to use the power of persuasion,
but if that doesn’t work,
we use the persuasion of power

UPDATE:

Which party is the fat cat party?
By Michelle Malkin • September 1, 2010 12:38 PM

Which party do “fat cats” really favor?

UPDATE: Thanks to Chrissythehyphenated!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Grassroots vs. Astroturf

  1. Aaron says:

    The left-wing is always committing projection upon us. They can’t even develop their own intellectual arguments, that’s why they’re constantly getting busted for strawmen on this site. In fact, Obama demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the left in his weekly address when he talked about how health insurance reform will somehow keep “corporate bureaucrats” out of the doctor-patient relationship. Does anyone wonder where he got the idea to talk about “keeping bureaucrats out of the doctor-patient relationship”? Can the left ever develop some real points to make, or are they truly capable of no more than stealing our intellectual work and changing a word or two? I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised, considering the left is all about stealing the fruits of others’ labor.

    Since the lefties that visit this site like to type about paranoia so much, here is some good reading on paranoia: http://americanbacklash.com/Paranoias.htm

  2. But, you need to understand that prior to 2008, we were the most committed and partisan Democrats any of us knew. We were FERVANT Democrats, dyed in the wool, and sided with Democrat candidates blindly time and time again.

    Look where we are today. We want to see every Democrat ejected from Congress. Every last one of them, because these lunatics ram through legislation that will destroy this country without even READING IT.

    What we want to note here is this, and it hasn’t been picked up by the political commentators yet: but if people like us, Democrat loyalists, have now completely turned against the party to the point where we no longer selectively pick and choose which Dems to support, but are actually going to vote straight-ticket Republican and will work to defeat Dems we once actually supported in the past, then we wonder what else is happening out there in formerly Democrat households.

    “We’re done” is what we’re hearing from all Dems we know. Granted, our friends were never Liberals…we’re moderates and centrists, and so our our friends and family. So, when we speak, we speak from this perspective. When we tell you the Dems we know have had it with this party, we’re talking about these moderates.

    We have no idea what’s going on in Leftist loony land, as we don’t associate with that crowd.

    Done. Done. Done.

    We hear that every day.

    We have no idea what’s going to happen in 2010, but don’t see any possibility at all this rift will be healed by the next election.

    MUST READ: Regular Americans Turning Away From Democrats

  3. We were, in fact, backing Coakley until Christmas week.

    That’s when everything changed for us — because Democrats decided to ram dangerous, unconstitutional legislation through the Senate in the dead of night, racing to force votes on a bill no one read or fully comprehends. That’s treasonous in our opinion — these idiots are jeopardizing the safety and the well-being of the nation for NO GOOD REASON. Not a single Democrat in the Senate can articulate exactly what is in the Healthcare Rationing bill or what financial impact it’s going to have on the country. None of the 60 Democrats in the Senate can explain why this bill needed to be rushed to the point of incompetence…when there was plenty of time for the Whore of the Senate, Ben Nelson, and the shameless Mary Landrieu to pork the bill up with all sorts of personal bribes for themselves.

    Shameless.

    The very reason we supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is because we trust the woman: she loves this country, believes in restrained fiscal management, carefully studies things before she commits to any long-term nation-changing legislation, and certainly learned her lesson in the 1990s in terms of how to go about healthcare reform. Hillary Clinton, if she was president today, would not be presiding over the disaster that’s befalling us in the Senate.

    So, at the end of the day, in the week before Christmas, we decided our love of this country and our concern for America’s future trumped any other allegiances we have. There is nothing we have against Coakley, and we will always appreciate her courageous stand with Clinton when the DNC and Utopia campaign where pummeling her with all they had. That took a lot of guts on her part to stand up for what she believed in when she was under such immense pressure.

    And so, it’s now our turn to do just that.

    We heard again today that we’ll never work for another Democrat campaign if we keep pushing Scott Brown, which means there’s no future in the political world for any of us. It’s long been our dream to find a way to actually make a living in politics, so we can quit our day jobs (emphasis on plural on that one), and just revel in politics and analysis all day. That would be a dream come true.

    And today’s threat is, either back off the Massachusetts race or that won’t ever happen, at least not in Chicago.

    And we say BRING IT.

  4. After a year of single-party governance, Americans have grown very disenchanted. In April of last year, 47% of respondents thought the country was moving in the right direction, against 42% who thought it was going off the rails. Now, 55% think the country is moving in the wrong direction, and only 34% think otherwise. Since only Democrats have been doing the driving, that gives a strong indication that they may find themselves replaced at the wheel at the next opportunity.

  5. It shows her elitism and arrogance…

    Actually, it’s not often that a major-party candidate makes so many gaffes in a single week. First there are no terrorists in Afghanistan, then she watches her new messaging director tackle a reporter, and now she’s too good for Fenway Park. It’s a remarkable record of incompetent campaigning, and it’s only Thursday.

  6. Jonah says:

    It’s probably no surprise to you that I’m supporting Martha Coakley in this election, but I do agree about her campaigning. It’s like the Democrats forgot everything that made them so successful in 2008. Coakley’s negative ads read like a parody of negative ads, and I’ve been getting robocalls from the DNC all week.

    We’ll see what happens Tuesday. It certainly will be interesting.

  7. The electorate has consistently disliked corruption, deceipt, and the lack of transparency in back-room, closed-door meetings.

    Democrats were successful in 2006 and 2008 because they were able to project those things upon Republicans. Voters voted for “Change” because:
    1) They believed that Republicans were in charge
    2) They believed the Democrats’ promises of “open, transparent, and accountable” government.

    The electorate now understands that Democrats are in charge, and that all of those promises of honesty and transparency were in fact lies.

  8. On January 14th, 2010 at 9:17 pm, sultanp said:

    Guess I’m lucky because as a resident of Massachusetts I get to:

    1) contribute to the Scott Brown campaign

    2) volunteer at the local call center

    3) do stand-outs, holding up campaign signs in town centers and outside the polling places on day of the election

    I get GREAT feedback from people driving by, honking, waving and giving the thumbs up!

    You can tell the Coakley drivers – they try to slink past without making eye contact, looking ashamed.

    Same with making phone calls to get out the vote: Brown supporters are enthusiastic and eager to tell me they are supporting Scott. The Coakley supporters almost all say that they are undecided and need to think about it some more – at this late date in the election. Almost no one says they are voting for her – like the drivers they seem ashamed. Just my 2 cents.

    Brown by 5.5

  9. This race has done a lot to expose the truth about who the Democratic Socialists really are…

    …elitists who look down on average citizens, and would much rather leave their state to go ask Fat Cat Washington D.C. lobbyists for support…

    … thugs who try to intimidate and silence those who dare to question them…

    … liars who promise one thing but then do another … (during the Democratic primary, Coakley promised she would not support Obamacare, but then “flip-flopped” after winning the primary)

    … domestic enemies of our Constitution …

    … sympathetic to terrorists and dangerous to our national security …

    The list goes on and on…

  10. Jonah,

    It’s probably no surprise to you that I’m supporting Martha Coakley in this election…

    Would you please explain what it is about Coakley that you support?

    Seriously. Does she represent what you stand for?

    Would she represent you, or would she represent Reid and Obama?

    I think she would be nothing more than a rubber stamp for those who want to railroad unconstitutional and unsustainable bills.

  11. On January 14th, 2010 at 10:58 pm, jdsbc98 said:

    I’m from MA and everywhere you look there is excitement for voting for Brown. It’s unlike anything I have ever seen here. Ask around and everyone here has anecdotes about their office, their neighbors and their family voting for Brown. All the callers to talk radio and the majority of comments on the paper’s blogs are pro Brown. Sure its not the most scientific analysis out there but everyone is seeing this happen. And its happening at the right time, 4 days to go and he’s peaking at the right time. Her negative ads are seen as comical at this point and way over the top. No one is buying what coakley is selling.

  12. Ryan,

    Democrats were successful in 2008 because of things like their promises to keep lobbyists out.

    How do you feel about Coakley’s blatant use of lobbyist money?

    Of course I think that Coakley’s D.C. fundraiser is just one more exposure of the truth that even some progressives have realized:

    ‘Charming Liar’: Progressives Turn on Obama as Air America Exposes ‘Fascist’ Drug Deal

  13. Jonah says:

    Red,

    Would you please explain what it is about Coakley that you support?

    Seriously. Does she represent what you stand for?

    I agree with almost all of her positions, and disagree with quite a few of Brown’s. What more do you want?

    I don’t think Scott Brown is a disaster, as Republicans go (his support of civil unions and basic abortion rights, for instance, are comforting), and during the brief time I worked in the State House, he struck me as reasonably politically mature. I’m a little bitter from the ’04 election that got him elected—I worked on the other campaign, whose “victory” party was a bit of a bummer—but I have a little perspective here, and I realize he could be worse.

    But, come on. Why wouldn’t I vote for the candidate who better represents my beliefs?

  14. I agree with almost all of her positions, and disagree with quite a few of Brown’s. What more do you want? … Why wouldn’t I vote for the candidate who better represents my beliefs

    Jonah,

    I have always appreciated your honesty and integrity. Almost a year ago you said:

    I believe, furthermore, that humans have not just a capacity for distinguishing right and wrong, but an inherent conscience pushing them towards right. I believe that no human chooses wrong on purpose.

    Even though you agree with almost all of Coakley’s positions, and disagree with quite a few of Brown’s, I firmly believe that voting for Coakley is “choosing wrong on purpose”.

    Why?

    Read this and this.

    I can honestly say that if our postitions were reversed, I would choose to vote for Brown not Coakley.

    A vote for Brown would not be a repudiation of your positions on the issues. It would be a repudiation of who Coakley is as a person, and a repudiation of the way both she and the Democrats in Congress have performed in their jobs.

    Grassroots patriots of all political backgrounds are fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, D.C. … they are fed up with bills being written behind closed doors, with no transparency, special deals to buy votes, and then being rushed to a vote without the members of Congress even reading the bill, let alone understanding it.

    A vote for Brown won’t change which party is in power. But it will change how they use that power. They will be forced to actually follow through on their promises of bipartisanship.

    If you vote for Coakley, you are approving of how she performed as Attorney General, approving of how she ignored that the man brought on to help her “messaging” sent a Chicago-style “message” to a reporter (see picture in post above), and approving of how Harry Reid has abused his power as majority leader.

    Again, if our roles were reversed and I were in your shoes, I can honestly say that I would vote for Brown, not Coakley.

    Do the right thing, Jonah. You’ve already admitted that you think Brown is “reasonably politically mature” and not a right-wing demagogue. Voting for Brown is voting for integrity over party politics.

    Do the right thing, Jonah.

  15. Jonah says:

    Read this and this.

    Fascinating reads. Thanks for the links.

    The first, I think, isn’t especially damning: the DA’s top concern is getting people behind bars, and prosecuting too early can seriously compromise that. Clearly Coakley and Frisoli disagreed about whether there was enough evidence at the time, and from what was presented in the article, the latter may have been right. But Coakley doesn’t seem to have been wrong about this point:

    Coakley said that her office did not ask for a dangerousness hearing – a proceeding in which prosecutors may request pretrial incarceration by arguing that the accused presents a danger to the community – because Winfield did not show any sign of being a repeat offender or sexual predator.

    Delaying the trial didn’t hurt anybody; Winfield committed no further crimes in the time before his trial, and he came willingly to court.

    The second link, in which Coakley as district attorney lobbied to keep the probably-innocent Amirault from getting the parole suggested by the parole board, is much more disturbing to me. But the DA’s job is to always argue on the side of the state, even in cases where the state is wrong. They oppose parole petitions as a matter of course. I dislike that, and if I were a lawyer I would never want to be a DA (or, really, any prosecutor), but I’m not going to oppose every DA who runs for office.

    And that really brings me to the central point:

    It would be a repudiation of who Coakley is as a person….

    Sorry, no. I’m not going to vote for a legislator because I like him, or because I don’t like the other candidate “as a person.” I vote for legislators because I think they’ll vote the way I would vote on the issues, because that’s what legislators do.

    I can understand feeling differently about people in the executive or judicial branches: you want a “strong leader” or some other cliché in the White House, and you want people with “good judgment” on the bench. But for Congress, the goal of the voter is to get his or her voice represented, period. Coakley almost uniformly represents my views better than Brown. In the few areas where I have reservations about her record—like inmates’ rights, as brought up earlier—Brown is worse: he supports the death penalty, for instance.

    I’m voting on the issues on this one. It’s nothing personal.

  16. Jonah says:

    A bit more reading yields this Politico piece, which is probably the most damning-yet-fair critique of Coakley on justice issues that I’ve seen. Of note is her opposition to the formation of an innocence commission in Massachusetts, which is really just inexcusable.

    At this point, I still plan on holding my nose and voting for her, because I think I’ll be happier with her actions in Congress than I would be with Brown’s. But it’s hard to get excited, which I suppose explains most of the quotes from my neighbors that you’ve cited above.

    Oh, and this is sort of drifting from the topic, but isn’t the graph in this post totally sweet? Yeah, I’m a stats geek.

  17. I vote for legislators because I think they’ll vote the way I would vote on the issues

    Would you vote on a bill without having read it?

    The Democrats in Congress did, and Coakley would do the same.

    How can you claim they’ll vote the way you would vote on the issues, when they don’t even know what they are voting for?

    It takes longer to write a bill than it takes to read it, and if they aren’t even given time to read the bill, then how did they have time to write the bill?

    These bills, by and large, are not being written by elected members of Congress. They are being written by groups like the Apollo alliance.

    Are you a full-blown socialist, Jonah?

    If so, I can understand you voting for Coakley.

    If not, I honestly can’t understand why you’d be willing to vote for a clueless rubber stamp for the socialists.

  18. Oh, and this is sort of drifting from the topic, but isn’t the graph in this post totally sweet?

    I actually saw that via a link from HotAir before I saw it via your link.

    And now, at this moment of near-triumph, when the conservative world is feeling as warm and festive as the Whos down in Whoville, I’m going to have to play Grinch. I didn’t want to do it to you, but you have a right to know. Brace yourselves, my friends, for … the ultimate heart-ache.

    Scott Brown more liberal than Dede Scozzafava? Hard to believe, but we’ll see…

  19. Has anyone ever seen a major campaign this badly handled in one short week? Most of the blame goes to Coakley, but the DSCC was the group that sent Michael Meehan to help with messaging this week. His first contribution was to commit assault and battery on a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Now the DSCC chooses an image of the World Trade Center, Ground Zero on 9/11, to represent Wall Street and to attack Brown. That’s not just “distasteful and disrespectful” to someone who served in the war on terror and remains in the National Guard to this day, it’s flat-out stupidity.

  20. I got friends up there, who talk funny and vote lib most of the time, but even they are voting Brown. Maybe it’s this Red Sox Nation thing, or maybe they’re just tired of being used.

    TXUS on January 15, 2010 at 10:50 PM

  21. Brown is exactly what Washington needs — someone who will vote his conscience rather than spew party rhetoric.

    The notion of change as an important ingredient here cannot be underestimated, not because the Democrats are necessarily on the wrong path, but because good government is enhanced by two viable parties.

    In the special Senate election on Tuesday, we recommend Scott Brown.

  22. If Palin had said this, the MSM would have spread it like wildfire, and you never would have heard the end of it…

  23. Jonah says:

    Would you vote on a bill without having read it?

    Generally speaking, if you find yourself making a point previously espoused by Michael Moore, it’s a good time to reëvaluate your argument. Maybe this is meant as a rhetorical flourish and not something you actually believe, but you seem to have been suggesting this for a while now. Still, I don’t want to waste my time rebutting the idea if you didn’t really mean it, so I’ll ask you outright before pursuing this further: do you seriously believe that one gets a better understanding of a major piece of legislation by reading its text in full, rather than by reading a non-legalese translation of its contents?

    At any rate, this discussion seems to be drifting towards health care reform, which might not be what you really want to talk about. More to the point, while there are conceivably areas where you might convince me that Brown is preferable to Coakley, health care is not one of them. Sorry.

    Best,
    Jonah

  24. Jonah,

    this discussion seems to be drifting towards health care reform

    That’s only one piece of the big picture.

    Look at everything this Congress and administration has done in the last year. Have they even once kept their promise to make legislation publicly availble for 5 days before voting on it and signing it into law?

    Again, health care is just one piece in the big picture of the last 12 months. Take a look at what happened with the “stimulus” bill, which I accurately called a Depressant.

    A vote for Coakley is a vote in favor of all of the broken promises, partisanship, back-door dealing, non-transparent, egregious actions of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama over the last year.

    If you really think that Reid, Pelosi, and Obama’s behavior over the last year represents what you want to see in our government, then by all means vote for Coakley. It would be the consistent thing to do.

    But it appears that there are many, many voters in MA who are not happy with the lies, not happy with the hyper partisanship, not happy with the back-room deals and kickbacks, and they are prepared to show the world another Massachusetts Miracle.

    But coming back to your primary concern, even a win by Brown doesn’t have to mean the end of health care reform… it just would mean the end of Democarats railroading a horrible bill through. If Democrats would be willing to keep their promises of “post-partisanship” and “transparency”, it could mean a much better bill and much better reform. The Democrats, though, show little sign of that… and are instead threatening to use the Reconciliation process. If they do, that will be the end of the Democrat party as you know it, since life-long moderate Democrats will continue their mass exodus out of the party.

  25. He’s drawing crowds rarely seen by Republicans in this state and seems to have more organic support than Coakley, an impression underscored by the imperfect measurement of yard signs spotted for the Republican (many) and the Democrat (none) along the South Shore and on the Cape.

    That’s the main point of this post.

    Brown = grassroots

    Coakley = astroturf

  26. Some additional thoughts about why Martha Antoinette Coakley said what she said about Curt Schilling…

    As quoted in the Hot Air headlines, Steve Kornacki says that Martha Coakley’s internal poll for Friday night showed Republican Scott Brown leading by two points, 47 to 45 percent. He goes on to say in an update:

    As a friend points out, the Friday night numbers probably don’t take into account Coakley’s latest well-publicized gaffe, when she seemed to forget that Curt Schilling — who at one point flirted with running in this race — had played for the Red Sox. It may be silly that baseball IQ could have anything to do with a Senate candidate’s election prospects, but that’s where we are.

    What is silly is Kornacki’s thinking this is about “baseball IQ”.

    Who brought up the topic of baseball? Coakley did. And why did she do so? In a condescending attempt to get Red Sox fans to ignore Rudy Giuliani because he is “a Yankees fan”. That ALONE speaks volumes. She thinks voters are stupid enough to ignore her “terrorists have all left” remark, and ignore Rudy’s support of Brown on national security issues, simply because Rudy is “a Yankees fan”.

    Interviewer Dan Rea was right on to immediately challenge that stupid dismal of Rudy by bringing up the fact that Curt Schilling also is supporting Brown.

    And here’s where Martha showed her ignorance. I doubt that she knows any more about the Yankees than the Red Sox. She is an elitest who’s probably never watched a MLB game in person. She likely said what she said about Rudy because HER HANDLERS TOLD HER TO DO SO.

    So both Coakley and those advising her think baseball fans are stupid and would ignore Rudy just because he’s a Yankees fan.

    Martha, a member of the “educated class”, then extrapolated that “Yankees fan” dismissal to anyone else who opposed her. They all must be just “another Yankees fan”.

    Kornacki says Coakley,

    seemed to forget that Curt Schilling — who at one point flirted with running in this race — had played for the Red Sox.

    I bet Coakley didn’t “forget”, I bet she never knew Schilling played for the Red Sox, and never payed attention to any of those who “flirted with running” against her. She had already won, remember?

    And Curt Schilling didn’t just “play for the Red Sox”… After having already won a World Series with another team, he played a key must-win game, while seriously injured, to help the Red Sox win their first World Series. The significance and importance of that cannot be overstated for anyone who lives in MA or is a Red Sox fan elsewhere. Running for Senate in MA, bringing up baseball, and dissing Schilling as a Yankees fan would be like running for Senate against John Glenn, bringing up the 60’s space race, and saying John Glenn was a fan of the Russians – hoping they would beat us to the moon.

    She deserves to be hammered for her arrogance and ignorance.

    This isn’t about “baseball IQ”. It’s about elitism and arrogance. It’s not the voters or interviewer who brought up baseball, it was Coakley. And not only did she strike out, she managed to somehow get hit by her own pitch!

  27. Martha Antoinette Coakley

    Make that Marcia Antoinette Coakley…

    The same Patrick Kennedy who previously e-mailed out the SOS:

    Please volunteer to help in the race for my father’s seat

    is now the source of the current top headline on the Drudge Report:

    KENNEDY DOESN’T EVEN KNOW HER NAME!

    The linked story says:

    Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as “Marcia,” not “Martha.”

  28. Jonah, in regards to your previous link to the analysis claiming that Brown is “a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava”…

    Frum and others are pointing to this analysis claiming that Brown is “a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava.” Nonsense. On the core do-or-die issues for mainstream Republicans, Brown is on the Right side. Scozzafava was on the radical Leftist side. He’ll vote against the Dems’ new stimulus schemes. She supported them. He’ll vote against the Dems’ cap-and-tax legislation. She would have voted for it. He’s opposed by the teachers’ union hacks. She raked in campaign cash from the National Education Association and an entire alphabet soup of Big Labor groups.

    On social issues, they wrongheadedly lump Brown and Scozzafava together as pro-choice Republicans of the same mold. Scozzafava rubbed the issue in the faces of her constituents with Planned Parenthood/NARAL endorsements and her glowing acceptance of an award named after notorious eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Brown, on the other hand, has not made abortion a focal point of the campaign and the Tea Party activists whom so many critics accuse of “purism” have been fine with that.

    Instead, Brown has run on the core Tea Party issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong national defense, while appealing to a broader swath of voters by emphasizing integrity, independence, and willingness to stand up to machine politics. After a year’s worth of Obama’s phony fruits and congressional foxes guarding the henhouse, voters have had enough of the enablers and water-carriers. Unlike Frum, Brown is channeling the energies of taxpayers of all stripes who are disgusted and angry — yes, ANGRY! – with the culture of corruption in Washington. That is how Brown has struck common ground with his insurgent center-right-indie coalition: By stepping up to oppose the Dems’ plans to rig the game and undermine representative government, instead of sneering at angry taxpayers’ “ideological extremism”/”paranoia” and instead of trashing the talk radio networks through which those angry taxpayers communicate, commiserate, and organize.

  29. The big takeaway on this is the favorability ratings of both candidates. Brown gets a 60/32, while Coakley sank to a 40/54 negative rating. And that comes from a sample with a partisan advantage of almost 15 points for the Democrats, which explains why Democrats aren’t fired up and ready to go for Tuesday.

  30. Jonah says:

    But coming back to your primary concern, even a win by Brown doesn’t have to mean the end of health care reform… it just would mean the end of Democarats railroading a horrible bill through.

    The thing is, I don’t think the Democrats have been “railroading a horrible bill through” at all. The bill in question has been drastically compromised since this debate started last summer. You can point to the strict voting along party lines as evidence that it’s still partisan, but when you look at the content and how much we liberals have sacrificed to appease conservative talking points, I don’t think it’s the Democrats who have been unreasonable here. Rather, Republican congresspeople realized (correctly) that the Tea Partiers et al. would have their heads if they supported the bill, so people like Snowe and Collins who probably want health care reform to pass can have their cake (see health care reform pass) and eat it too (not have to vote for it).

    In other words, if Brown wins, I think health care reform will still happen, and the bill that passes won’t be particularly different from that if he loses. It’s just that if he wins, one of the so-called RINOs will be forced to step up to the plate and do something politically difficult. Presumably you like this scenario (the Malkin post practically writes itself), but you can understand why I as a voter don’t find it particularly convincing.

    At any rate, yes, I think the Democrats in Congress have ample room to improve, but I think the Republicans have been behaving much worse throughout. And since the former has actually accomplished something despite the latter’s efforts—after over a hundred years of talking about it, finally real health care reform seems possible—I don’t feel bad about letting them continue in this vein.

  31. I don’t think the Democrats have been “railroading a horrible bill through” at all.

    Yes they have been. They are out of touch with the Mainstream, and are railroading a bill that a majority nationwide do not support:

    Just 38% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That matches the lowest level of support yet. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters oppose the plan. As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 18% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 44% are Strongly Opposed.

    Democrats had to steal an election in Minnesota, and change the rules in Massachusetts to even get to the point of having 60 votes for cloture. And, having used “any means necessary” to obtain that power, they then proceeded to abuse that power.

    They locked Republicans out (literally), and broke every promise they made about transparency.

    Now voters are justifiably angry, and are committed to removing Democrats from power.

    The American people thought “Change we can believe in” meant and end to partisanship and the beginning of open, transparent, and accountable government.

    In the last year, they have learned that the “fundamental transformation” that Obama spoke of was really driving us down The Road to Socialism USA.

    That’s not what most americans want, and they are making their voices heard.

    “Can you hear us now?”

  32. While 86% of GOP voters nationwide want Brown to win, only 65% of Democratic voters hope Coakley will capture the Senate seat held for 46 years by the late Edward M. Kennedy. Fifty-five percent (55%) of unaffiliateds also want Brown to win.

    Does that tell you anything?

  33. Once again, the Political Class and Mainstream American voters don’t see eye-to-eye. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the Political Class want Coakley, currently the state attorney general, to win, while 58% of Mainstream voters prefer a Brown victory. Just over half of each group expects their favorite to win.

  34. Jonah says:

    Now voters are justifiably angry, and are committed to removing Democrats from power.

    While 86% of GOP voters nationwide want Brown to win, only 65% of Democratic voters hope Coakley will capture the Senate seat held for 46 years by the late Edward M. Kennedy. Fifty-five percent (55%) of unaffiliateds also want Brown to win.

    Does that tell you anything?

    Okay, but now your argument is basically that I shouldn’t like health care reform because some other people don’t like health care reform, and that I shouldn’t like Coakley because some other people don’t like Coakley. There are probably a few points worth discussing further among the issues brought up so far, but you seem to have exhausted all serious arguments about why I would want to vote for Brown.

    I’m going with Coakley tomorrow. I’m still not enthusiastic about it (re: justice issues above), but I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence that Brown wouldn’t be just as bad (and, from some of his statements on Guantanamo detainees, I worry he might even be worse). Attempting to convince me otherwise may have been a futile effort, but I still appreciate your willingness to do so with civility. Regardless of who wins, I’ll have a new senator who neither impresses nor repulses me. With the political atmosphere lately, I guess that’s not such a bad deal.

    Best,
    Jonah

  35. Okay, but now your argument is basically that I shouldn’t like health care reform because some other people don’t like health care reform, and that I shouldn’t like Coakley because some other people don’t like Coakley.

    No, that’s not my argument at all. I’m not saying you shouldn’t like health care reform. I’m making the point that the Democrats in Congress have abused their power and produced bills that do not represent what mainstream America wants.

    There are probably a few points worth discussing further among the issues brought up so far, but you seem to have exhausted all serious arguments about why I would want to vote for Brown.

    It’s not my job to convince you how to vote. It’s my job to speak the truth. If you want to vote for more Democratic Socialist “business as usual” where they lock out opposing views, basically tell mainstream America to “Sit down and shut up!”, and act like “the debate is over”, then go ahead and vote for Cokely.

  36. Not only are all other significant state offices occupied by Democrats, the governorship is in the hands of the very Democratic, very liberal, and very unpopular Deval Patrick. There is not even a token of Republican leadership to be found. And for the independent voters who will play a critical role in Tuesday’s election, Massachusetts’ one-party rule mirrors the one-party rule in today’s Washington, where national Democrats are deciding important issues among themselves without even the pretense of including Republicans.

    Tuesday’s special election presents the first opportunity for Massachusetts voters to remedy the situation. Massachusetts has not sent a Republican to the Senate in more than a generation, but voters might take this chance to restore some small measure of balance to a government that is perhaps too blue even for a very blue state.

    “This country was built on debate,” says Diane Anderson, a Brown voter from Swampscott, Massachusetts. “And with the Democrats having 60 senators…just for that fact alone, if for no other reason, we should continue to have debate, and Brown will bring debate, being the 41st Republican.

  37. Aaron says:

    Anyone who has paid attention to the greater healthcare debate by this point should realize that the left has been spewing little more than garbage the whole time.

    The Republicans HAVE REPEATEDLY proposed alternatives to the Dems’ massive insurance company bail-out/subsidy scam they call “healthcare reform”. Every single alternative proposed by the Reps has been thrown out by the Dems, yet they have the gall (and MSM) to stand behind a podium and claim that the Reps have proposed nothing?

    Of course, when it comes to liberals, it doesn’t count as proposing something unless that something involves punishing productive people to line the pockets of their fat-cat supporters. Is it any surprise that the Dems are bringing in fat-cats from outside MA to campaign for Coakley?

    ACORN has been quiet as of late, is anyone checking up on them to expose their activity? Also, is anyone been monitoring the activity of the SEIU, the Black Panthers, etc…? We need to watch out for them; no member of those organizations is trustworthy, they’ll stop at nothing to further their agenda.

  38. Ryan says:

    Aaron, that’s a good laugh, but if the Republicans have so many great health care ideas, what the hell were they doing sitting on their asses for eight years while things got to this point?

    And fat-cat supporters? What? Is that something unique to Democrats? Come on man, get real.

  39. Jonah says:

    Just got a push-poll from the Brown’s people with, among other things, this question:

    In World War II, 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. Now 6 million Israelis live under constant threat of attack from Islamic extremists. Meanwhile, 1 million women and children in sub-Saharan Africa die each year from malaria. The United Nations could use its billions of dollars to protect the people of Israel or to prevent the spread of malaria. In your opinion, is the threat to security in Israel a more pressing concern that should immediately be addressed by the United Nations than the epidemic of malaria in Africa?

    If that’s how Scott Brown wants to play, then I’m feeling pretty happy with my vote for Coakley now.

  40. Aaron says:

    Oh look, Ryan has dropped in to cry, “Bu- Bu- BUUUUSSSHH!!!” again. Is anyone surprised by this?

    The Republicans were trying (and being stone-walled by the Democrats the whole way) to fix social security, to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to prevent the economic crash that was setup by the Clinton Administration.

    Here’s some questions for you. If this insurance scam/veiled tax hike–that the Dems are throwing everything they have at making it pass DESPITE the overall disapproval of the majority of my fellow countrymen (they’re not your countrymen)–is such a good thing, then why do they have to make another Louisiana Purchase?

    Why do they have to make a Cornhusker Kickback?

    Why are the drug companies (you know, those “evil” corporate types driven by that “dastardly profit motive” you and the rest of the left loathe so deeply) lining up to throw money in support of passing this? What are they standing to gain from this bill? We both know they’re not acting on altruism at the cost of their profits. (The difference is that I’m ok with that while you hate it)

    Also, where did I say that Fat Cats are ONLY a Democrat thing? However, to compare the amount of Fat Cat money given to Dems to that given to Reps, is the same as comparein the amount of water in the Atlantic Ocean to that in Lake Eerie, respectively.

  41. Ryan says:

    Never mind Aaron. You’re right. Democrats hate America, Republicans have all the answers, and corporations are just looking out for us.

  42. Jonah,

    How do you know for sure that that push poll was really run by Brown’s campaign, and not by someone else trying to make Brown look bad? Are you aware of the following fraud that has already been reported?

    Behind in the polls to Republican Senate candidate Scott brown, supporters of pro-abortion candidate Martha Coakley have evidentially reached into their bag of dirty tricks. A Washington, D.C. based company is making calls to Massachusetts residents pretending to represent a prominent pro-life group.

    The calls, from 202-461-3441, a Washington number registered to a company called SOOH, claim to be from Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

    The caller claims the pro-life group is opposing Scott brown because of his stance against the health care bill, but as MCFL president Anne Fox told LifeNews.com late Monday, the opposite is true.

    I don’t believe that the Brown campaign played any role in the push poll you mention. He had absolutely no need or motivation to do so, but the Democrats did.

    On a separate topic, I’m very curious to hear what your experience was like at your local voting precinct. Are you willing to share what the environment was like? Was it crowded? Did you see obvious show of support for either candidate, and if so, how much?

  43. Ryan,

    And fat-cat supporters? What? Is that something unique to Democrats? Come on man, get real.

    Fat-cat supporters are not unique to either party, but if you re-read the post above, you’ll see that for many years the Democrats have been the recipients of more “Fat-Cat” donations, while the Republicans have been the recipients of more “grassroots” donations. And that’s exactly what just happened in the Massachusettes Senate race.

  44. Ryan,

    Never mind Aaron. You’re right. Democrats hate America, Republicans have all the answers, and corporations are just looking out for us.

    Marxists hate capitalism. And Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Marxists.

    Free-market capitalism and Judeo-Christian morality made this country very, very prosperous, and it is that prosperity and morality that allows us to give millions to other countries in need (like Haiti).

    No, Republicans don’t have all the answers. You haven’t been paying attention to the Tea Party movement that is angry with the Marxist nanny-staters in BOTH parties.

    Scott Brown may not be as socially conservative as I am, but he appears to be fiscally conservative and his military service is evidence to me that he loves this country. I love the fact that he was elected with grassroots support, and is not beholden to the Republican Party machine or any special interest groups.

    Martha Coakley could not have said the same thing. She was beholden to money she received from Fat-Cat lobbyists, SEIU, and the Democratic Party machine.

  45. Jonah says:

    How do you know for sure that that push poll was really run by Brown’s campaign, and not by someone else trying to make Brown look bad?

    Brown ran milder push polls in ’04 against Angus McQuilken (side note: coolest name ever?), and in that case didn’t deny hiring the company in question (though I seem to recall him being apologetic about the content), so this didn’t seem inconsistent.

    But further research suggests the calls today are coming from NOM, so I take it back; conservative in origin, but not technically Brown-affiliated.

    On a separate topic, I’m very curious to hear what your experience was like at your local voting precinct. Are you willing to share what the environment was like? Was it crowded? Did you see obvious show of support for either candidate, and if so, how much?

    I voted around 10 AM and the crowd was very thin. There were maybe half a dozen people voting when I was in the booths, and only one or two people before me in line to pick up and drop off the ballot. I live in the metro Boston area in a fairly academic neighborhood, so this is a predominantly liberal precinct. Take that as you will. Of course, I missed the before-work crowd, which I’m sure has something to do with it. On election day ’08, for instance, the line wrapped around two sides of a city block at 7:30, but had died down to about twenty people by 9:30.

    Unfortunately, the ballot counter was jammed when I voted, so we placed our ballots in a bin while they worked on fixing it. As such, I didn’t get a read from the digital display about how many had voted so far. My girlfriend is voting later this evening when it will presumably be packed, so I’ll let you know her experience.

    I didn’t notice anybody holding signs, though I entered from the opposite direction from where they usually congregate.

    My parents live out in the suburbs in more conservative town, but within a relatively liberal precinct of that town (I think it was one of the two or three that McQuilken won in ’04). They’ve been at the polls all day, and say it’s been about 50% turnout so far in their precinct.

  46. Jonah,

    Do you happen to have the caller ID for the push-poll you received?

    On January 19th, 2010 at 4:36 pm, Dan Shea said:
    Hmmm, I got a call on my cell earlier from that same DC number – 202-461-3441. They left a message saying “This is a public interest survey call…”. Yeah, right. Too late anyway, guys, already voted for Brown!

  47. Jonah says:

    That’s the number, yeah. People’s beliefs about the source seems like a political Rorschach test at this point. Huh. Can we find anything more definitive?

  48. That’s the number, yeah. People’s beliefs about the source seems like a political Rorschach test at this point. Huh. Can we find anything more definitive?

    One of my earlier comments said the following, but had a bad URL link. Here’s part of the previously quoted text, with the correct URL link to where I saw this info on MM’s site:

    The calls, from 202-461-3441, a Washington number registered to a company called SOOH, claim to be from Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

    The caller claims the pro-life group is opposing Scott brown because of his stance against the health care bill, but as MCFL president Anne Fox told LifeNews.com late Monday, the opposite is true.

    If one call from that phone number was spreading such lies about Brown, then it is safe to say that neither Brown nor Brown supporters were behind any of the calls from that phone number.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s