Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Congratulations to Martha Coakley!

By

A very impressive win.  Here are the numbers — 100% reporting.

Coakley: 47% (309,943)

Capuano: 28% (184,715)

Khazei: 13% (88,886)

Pagliuca: 12% (80,166)

The total of those votes is 663,710, maybe a tad higher than predicted, but still I think only about 16%.

Congratulations to the other candidates for a fine campaign.  We’re of course pleased that our endorsee managed to crawl his way out of the single digits, where most polling had him, and land in a respectable third place despite being outspent several times over by the fourth place finisher.

And so, to those of you who were not Coakley supporters in the primary: take a day to lick your wounds, but after that, we should all of course unite behind Martha Coakley to be our next U.S. Senator.  We at BMG are pleased and proud to do so.

GO MARTHA!!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’d like to submit a number of questions to Martha about her positions on civil and Constitutional rights, specifically issues arising out of actual events in our nation over the last nine years relating to the suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, surveillance of American citizens without warrant or FISA court authorization, national security letters, sneak and peak provision, using Patriot Act authorities to investigate domestic crime like drug dealing and possessing child pornography, the obligations of the justice Department to follow the evidence where it leads in the torture of US prisoners in military, CIA and contractor  custody.  Who wants to help?

    • I was appalled at the abuses of the Bush administration and the continuation of many of them by our current president. One of my concerns about Ms. Coakley has been her apparent lax oversight over the rights of the accused. I say apparent, I’m willing to entertain an opposing reasoned opinion about that.

      <

      p>Discussion of the issues you listed is especially important in the light of Ms. Coakley’s stated wish to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

      <

      p>Asking her about these issues would draw needed attention to them. The public does not seem to understand how the abuses you mention actually make us less safe.

      • Questioning the candidates views does not amount to supporting her opponent…and so saying “Apparently you mean Go Scott Brown!” is at best off-hand, at worst totally ignorant.

        <

        p>Likewise, telling a person what they mean is a bit presumptuous.  I suspect you were just being flip and did not expect anyone to take you seriously.  That said, you create an opportunity to address this more explicitly,  not necessarily for your benefit.

        <

        p>Martha has to earn my vote and I bet there are a lot of Capuano supporters who feel that way.  Your divisive crack certainly doen’t help your candidate win anyone over. That said, I don’t hold Martha accountable for your flip quip.

        <

        p>For example, if Martha believes the president can detain an American citizen indefinetly without the rights of judicial process or the writ of habeas corpuse simply because they’ve been classified as an enemy combatant she will not get my vote, etc.

        <

        p>You have offered Martha’s white paper on HOMELAND SECURITY before and I have commented before that while it does have a small section on civil rights they don’t address the issues I’ve mentioned.

      • …is thin on the topic of civil liberties. It makes many references to work Coakley did as AG to provide funding and training to law enforcement organizations and how she would provide same as a senator. Proper funding and training for law enforcement, balanced against other needs of the country, is fine with me.

        <

        p>It makes only passing, unspecific references to civil liberties. For example, on p. 6 in a discussion of cyber security:

        <

        p>

        We can defend our valuable information and infrastructure, while also protecting the privacy rights and civil liberties of our fellow citizens.

        Which privacy rights and civil liberties does she consider important? What does she think of the government conducting searches without a warrant? I can’t tell from reading this.

        <

        p>About the Patriot Act and its effect on civil liberties, she says:

        <

        p>

        I will work to ensure that any proposed security legislation or Patriot Act reauthorization has a meaningful impact on our national security and minimal infringement on the privacy and freedom of our citizens.

        <

        p>Again, what does this mean? Does she support the Patriot Act as it now stands? Which provisions, if any, would she change?

        <

        p>The following topics are not mentioned:

        <

        p>habeus corpus
        detention (indefinite or otherwise)
        search warrant (FISA or otherwise)
        national security letter
        investigation of torture of US prisoners
        political influence over the Dept of Justice

        <

        p>I am left to wonder if Coakley thinks there are any civil liberties that need to be restored.

        <

        p>I am not trying to endorse Scott Brown. We need to be demand more of our officials than just their party affiliation. We can be loyal Democrats and still expect meaningful answers to our questions.

        • I suggest anyone interested in these issues, see the ACLU Questionnaire covering what they see has the leading threats to civil liberties, which is posted online here:
          http://www.aclum.org/election/

          <

          p>habeus corpus:  This is too broad a category to truly discuss.  Not something one is for or against, more of a catch all category.  For the record, the Attorney General’s office (Criminal Bureau) defends the Commonwealth in all state and federal habeas corpus proceedings filed by persons held in custody in Massachusetts.  And, yes, Coakley, as AG, joined 18 other AGs  signing the Alabama death penalty case brief which argued for stricter conditions on federal court more discretion in reviewing decisions by the state courts.  

          <

          p>This certainly does not mean Coakley is “against” the right to a fair trial or “for” unlawful detention.

          <

          p>detention (indefinite or otherwise)/investigation of torture of US prisoners:  Coakley indicates in the Questionnaire that she will “support efforts to end indefinite detention of individuals who have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government without charge or the chance of a trial on the basis of perceived future danger.”   She supports  a Congressional investigation of “unlawful activities by government officials in the post-9/11 era,” as well as for similar investigations by an appointed body or special prosecutor.  She supports  ” repeal of the Military Commissions Act and the trial of detainees in US federal courts.”

          <

          p>Anyway, the Questionnaire covers other civil liberties issues as well, but you and Neil should check it out for yourself and let me know what remains to be resolved.  Maybe I can help you find the answers you “need” before you can decide whether Scott Brown is truly the better candidate.

          <

          p>“Protecting individual civil liberties is fundamental to our democracy. I applaud the work of the American Civil Liberties Union to promote and defend individual rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution and under the law. I consider myself an ally in your efforts to preserve first amendment rights; to ensure all people receive equal protection under the law and receive due process; and to strengthen rights of privacy.” – Martha Coakley, 2009

          <

          p>

          • habeus corpus:  This is too broad a category to truly discuss.  Not something one is for or against, more of a catch all category.

             I disagree and I don’t find your contributions useful.

            <

            p>

            let me know what remains to be resolved.  

            No.

            Maybe I can help you find the answers you “need” before you can decide

            No “thanks”.

            <

            p>

            Maybe I can help you find the answers you “need” before you can decide whether Scott Brown is truly the better candidate.

            You need to work on your reading comprehension if you think this is the assessment we are making. You’re barking up the wrong tree.  Find another tree.

            • .. what is your point?  You keep saying “the candidate must answer the questions.”  Meaning, it seems, reply to every possible attack on her record that her primary opponents could dream up.  Yet, all I hear is sour grapes from a former Capuano supporter.  That an obsession with Fells Acre.  

            • What an incredibly rude response to a civil and rather helpful comment.  Have you even looked at the ACLU questionnaire?  I have – it is pretty useful, and it does touch on some of the topics you mention.  As for habeas corpus, how much do you actually know about it?  I know a fair amount, and I can tell you that it’s an incredibly complicated area of the law.  No one is simply “for” or “against” habeas corpus.  The Alabama brief addressed one tiny corner of the vast universe of issues surrounding habeas.

              <

              p>It’s all well and good to state that Coakley needs to “earn your vote,” but I have to wonder exactly what that means, since the choices other than voting for Coakley are (1) voting for Scott Brown, (2) voting for the other dude on the ballot, or (3) staying home.  None of those seems likely to me for a self-proclaimed progressive who is politically active.  Personally, I can’t imagine sitting out a Senate election simply because I wasn’t 100% satisfied with any of the candidates, and yes, I’d vote for what I saw as the lesser of two evils every time.

              • From my point of view Coakley has to earn my vote by answering questions about civil and Constitutional rights. I have questions about her views about the balance she would strike between government authority and civil rights. I have found her that the answers she provided in her Homeland Security Whitepaper, GreylockNews.com questionaire, and ACLU questionaire provide an incomplete picture.   I think the best way to approach the questions is with actual issues Senators and the executive branch faced over the last eight years that relate to civil rights and government authority.  

                <

                p>If I’m not mistaken, you too were taken aback by her answer to the question about how she handled the Gerald Amirault sentence commutation and what she had to say about it last month.  To me, that’s a case of her execising her authority and judgnment and not a question of civil or Constituional rights. While I’d like to know her true motives in denying Gerald a commuted sentence, I don’t pretend I could ever get a different answer.  

                <

                p>Here’s another Fells Acre related issue, a ten year gag order on a parolee? I’d like to ask her to asnwer a question about denying Cheryl her 1st amendment rights for ten years as a condition of not receiving a new trial, which she won on appeal.    

                <

                p>Above, I asked if there were others who felt that way, that Coakley has to earn their  vote by answering questions about civil and Constitutional rights.  MizJones indicated her interest. From what I can see, her interest is to dig a bit too.  Loquaciousliberal wants me to see that it’s all been articulated already.  Plus who needs the snark, the bait if that’s what that this is:  

                <

                p>

                Apparently you mean…
                Go Scott Brown!  
                For those truly interested in Coakley’s views on these issues, I again suggest the following, comprehensive position paper:
                http://www.marthacoakley.com/s…

                <

                p>Seriuously, who wants words put in their mouth?

                <

                p>Was there been an instance during the Bush Administration when habaus corpus was suspended?  If so, I’d like to forumlate a question for Coakley around that fact set.

                <

                p>Loquaciousliberal says that if I/we are not compelled by the white paper,  I should let him know so he can address it. Let me be clear. No thank you. I’m not looking for someone to convinve me. I’m looking for people who want to do some work in order that we would be convinced by Martha (or not.)  If you have an interest I would welcome your contribution.

                <

                p>If my impatience with Loquaciousliberal was rude I apologize.  

                • On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law (called the Military Commissions Act of 2006) suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons “determined by the United States” to be an “enemy combatant” in the “Global War on Terror.”

                  <

                  p>ACLU Questionaire: Will you support a repeal of the Military Commissions Act and the trial of detainees in US federal courts?

                  <

                  p>Candidate Coakley’s Answer: Yes.

                  <

                  p>For more see: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), for the Supreme Court majority ruling which found that the Constitution (the right of habeas corpus review) applies to persons held in Guantanamo and even to persons designated as “enemy combatants” and held at the base.

                  <

                  p>Next issue?  Honestly, unless you want to continuie to argue  about the Amiraults (asked and answered by the candidate herself) or re-hash the ridiculous “right to cross-examine the police drug lab employee” stuff, I’m happy to discuss any and all civil liberties issues.  

              • It’s like he did some sort of Vulcan mindmeld with JohnD and BeanintheBurbs.

                <

                p>I keep hoping he’ll snap out of it.

                • nothing better to do than gripe about mw. I give David and theloquaciousliberal credit for being constructive.  You,  on the other hand, not so much.  

          • It puts Coakley on the record in a broad sense about the issues listed.

            <

            p>I would like to have seen more supporting statements from her rather than simple Y/N answers. The wording of the questions is such that a Y answer does not require a strong commitment. Most of them ask “Will you support X?”.

            <

            p>The answers without statements leave open the question about how hard she will fight in those areas. A Y might simply mean “I won’t work actively to block this and will vote for it if it comes up”. In this Republican-lite-controlled Congress, it’s safe to say that many of the issues addressed won’t be brought up.

            <

            p>Have no fear that I would vote for Brown.

            <

            p>I see the questions as a way to get some public commitments from Coakley regarding what she will do if (probably when) she takes office. Her ACLU answers, while quite acceptable, don’t commit her to much.

            • If we’re going to do the hard work of framing a variety of questions on the topics you mention, we need to figure out how to ask them so that we can gauge her level of committment as well as how she would balance those intersts against competing interests. Have you seen this Q&A yet?  

              • I finally got around to reading.

                <

                p>It provides a useful clarification about Coakley’s position on the Patriot Act. Here I learned that she opposes it as it now stands, resolving an apparent contradiction. It would be good to know how she would like it changed.

                <

                p>Should this discussion be moved to its own diary? I jumped into this because of my interest in the topic of civil liberties, especially those violated by the Bush admin.

                <

                p>If people closer to the Coakley campaign can provide answers on some of the specifics, that would be great.

    • ..of what Congress could and should do about political influence and corruption in the Justice Department. Some the US Attourneys who were not fired by Bush engaged in what were very likely politically motivated activities.

      <

      p>An outstanding example of these activities is the selective prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman for alleged campaign finance irregularities. The charges were thin, the sentence harsh, and whistleblowers have cited irregularities and signs of political motivation in the trial. Ninety one former Attourneys General, including Scott Harshbarger and Robert Quinn of MA, signed a document sent to the US Supreme Court in support of Siegelman.

      <

      p>You can learn more about Siegelman’s case here: http://www.donsiegelman.org/

      <

      p>and read the document sent by the former Attourneys General here: http://www.donsiegelman.org/fi…

      <

      p>As in many other areas, the Obama administration has dropped the ball by deliberately continuing the policies of Bush.

      • But I’m rather more interested in {Google CEO Eric} Schmidt’s focus on the PATRIOT Act:

        we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities

        This is the CEO of Google-a company that, four years ago, fought to avoid letting Alberto Gonzales get its searches in the name of preventing pornography-telling you that everything you do on Google “could be made available” to the authorities. Which I presume means it is being made available… link

        <

        p>  

      • ACLU: “No Prohibition against Monstrous Conduct” without Ajudication of Torture

        The ACLU just finished up a conference call on the status of accountability for torture. Jameel Jaffer talked about accountability generally, Ben Wizner gave an update on the Jeppesen lawsuit (which he will argue next Tuesday, Alex Abdo gave an update on the torture FOIA, and Christopher Anders gave an update on the long-awaited OPR report.

        While there were a range of questions, most of the answers converged on one theme best summed up by an answer explaining the cost to our judicial system in holding up the legal judgments on torture. Until we have a binding decision on these cases, Ben Wizner argued, there is “no prohibition against monstrous conduct.”

        […]

        Obama talked a lot about consequences today. But he fails to demand any for his own government. And until he does, that means torture will still be used. link

  3. one more ceiling smashed another to go on Jan. 19th…it’s time…and we are all in the same boat now!

    <

    p>Congratulations to BMGers who helped Martha achieve that impressive victory and to those who gave their all to our other Democratic candidates…good men all.

    <

    p>Jan. 19th we will all celebrate together.

  4. Hugely disappointed neither of my top choices won (Khazei, Capuano, in that order) but as quickly as possible will make myself ready to pursue the common good for America: utterly crushing the extreme, right-wing Republican agenda in the next election.

    •  Who will deny healthcare to the entire populace if she doesn’t get her way?
      GO SCOTT BROWN!

          • I will stand with and unhesitatingly vote for Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate along with, I am guessing, 66 percent of the Mass. electorate on January 19. But enjoy your time, billxi, volunteering for Scott in the wind, snow, sleet, and freezing rain while you make a worthy effort to build a new foundation for the post-Romney Massachusetts Republican Party. The citizens of Massachusetts would indeed benefit if a vigorous Brown Senate campaign signaled the rebirth and revival of the dormant, uncompetitive, and unintentionally hilarious Massachusetts GOP.  

            • Ever win a courtroom case? I best remember her whining about the Woodward case “ABORTION FOR ALL OR HEALTHCARE FOR NONE!” Now there’s a campaign motto. Good Weyrich quote.  

      • to see if the conservative wing of the Republican Party Scazzofava’s Scott Brown for being moderate on abortion rights.  

        <

        p>Doubtful,  they’d support George Bush for Senator of MA to get a 41st vote in the Senate, not that they need it with Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu. Brown is

        <

        p>FOR
        Afghan troop surge
        abortion rights

        <

        p>AGAINST
        Public Option
        Cap and Trade greenhouse gas
        Gay Marriage – wants Constitutional Amendment to ban
        repeal of DOMA

        <

        p>He should fit in to the party of NO quite nicely if he makes it past January.

        <

        p>Just what we need, a person who is so extreme in his view of gay people he’d try to modify the Constitution to codify constitutional prejudice on matters of civil rights and equal treatment under the law for gay people.  Do you think he learned that in college or at BC law?

        <

        p>BONUS
        Scott is attractive..even with his pants on.

        <

        p>Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy who modeled nude for money when he was in his early 20s expects to be taken as the more serious candidate on matters of what he considers moral bearing?  

  5. I was one of her fiercest and most ardent critics in the Democratic primary, but she deserves to celebrate her U.S. Senate primary election tonight with her committed and passionate supporters in Massachusetts. I hope and expect Martha Coakley’s performance as the next U.S. Senator representing the Commonwealth will far exceed her  mediocre and uninspiring performance as the state Attorney General and her tepid U.S. Senate  primary campaign.

    <

    p>Finally, I hope Ms. Coakley will consider resigning as AG on or about January 1, 2010, rather than waiting until immediately after her presumed election to the U.S. Senate on January 19, 2010, so that the Legislature can select the next Attorney General immediately after coming back into session during the first week of January.

    <

    p>Three weeks of AG office jockeying and horsetrading on Beacon Hill is  more than likely to produce an interim AG  appointee  who will be a lapdog, rather than a watchdog, when it comes to investigating and prosecuting the rampant political corruption plaguing the state.

  8. and then hope I don’t feel compelled to support a primary challenge from the left in 2012.

    <

    p>I do think it’s important to really beat the tar out of Mr. Brown.  There’s no reason to give the GOP any more talking points about their resurgence, although I do hope that folks nationally dump money into Brown’s race… might as well stimulate the local economy with money from across the country.

  10. Here are the top ten and bottom ten communities for each candidate.  I suspect our own Michael Forbes Wilcox is responsible for making Alford (of which I believe he is Moderator) the only town to give Khazei a majority AND keep it in the bottom ten for all three of the others – congratulations!  I guess at the end of the day it really is going with the name recognition.  I don’t say this to downplay valid reasons for supporting Coakley, but just to remind ourselves again that those who engage here are both more active/informed in the aggregate than the population as a whole.  As such our view of voters’ opinions are going to be a bit skewed.  Just about every prediction offered here had the margin narrower.

  11. And I don’t mean standing in colder weather and deeper snow to get Martha elected. (If anybody sees me holding a sign at 6AM on January 19th, please shoot me. Seriously)

    <

    p>2010 will be the wildest year we’ve had around here in a long time. AG, Auditor, and Treasurer up for grabs. A horse race for Gov/Lt. Gov. All the down ballot races as people look to move up.  

    <

    p>Let the games begin.

  12. An impressive win by Martha Coakley based on many factors, including gender, name recognition, suburban appeal, and ‘playing it safe.’ Alas, the last factor is one that dismays me personally … but hey, fact is that the majority of Mass. voters like their politicians ‘mild.’

    <

    p>My questions:

    <

    p>Will anybody pay attention to the so-called race between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown between now and Jan. 4th (the first Monday after the New Year’s holiday)?

    <

    p>Will Scott Brown be able to garner more than 35% of the vote come 1/19?

    <

    p>Will Alan Khazei be able to turn his ‘government by the people’ mantra into future political opportunity and if so, at what level?

    <

    p>Is Mike Capuano’s loss really a loss, considering that he went from single digits in the polls into a 28%/185,000 result in 80+ days?

    <

    p>Does Mike Capuano’s loss – the uniformity of margins in the ‘burbs and ‘gateway’ cities – spell the end of statewide runs by ethnic, urban pols?  

    • How much $$$ would members of BMG have to raise to convince Scott Brown and Martha Coakley to agree not to run any television campaign ads or make any robocalls on their behalf to voters’ homes between now and January 19? Personally, I would contribute a $100 toward this collective political effort to prescribe a holiday season break from intrusive election politics until we dive into the maelstrom of Election Year 2010.    

      • A field operation is all about voter contact.  December 25th itself might be a bit tacky, but otherwise I would fully expect an all out effort to keep this election on voters minds.  Sorry, but that’s democracy for you.

    • An impressive win by Martha Coakley based on many factors, including gender, name recognition, suburban appeal, and ‘playing it safe.’ Alas, the last factor is one that dismays me personally

      <

      p>The goal is to win, and she won.  Kudos to her for finding a winning formula.

      <

      p>Will anyone pay attention pre-1/4?  No.

      <

      p>Will Brown get more than 35%?  I’d predict that’s right around what he will get.

      <

      p>Will Khazei look for more political opportunity?  I’d guess that he will, but I have no idea when or how.  I doubt he will take on a sitting Senator or Rep, so it’s not clear what options that leaves him.

      <

      p>Is Cap’s loss really a loss?  Yes.  He lost.  A second place, 28% finish in a four-way race where the winner gets 47% isn’t horrible, but especially considering that he was the only sitting Congressman in the race and had the only pre-existing federal campaign account at his disposal, it’s not a huge victory either.

      <

      p>Does Cap’s loss mean the end of urban pols running statewide?  Now that is an interesting question.  I suggest writing a post on that – it brings up lots of interesting issues and is worth discussing further.

      • A loss is a loss, but I’m wondering if Capuano’s run puts him in a better position than the rest of the delegation for either a future statewide run or a potential redistricting fight.

    • but hey, fact is that the majority of Mass. voters like their politicians ‘mild.’

      <

      p>ooh… ‘scare quotes’.  Personally, I don’t know from mild, or from what you think ‘mild’ means, but I feel safe in saying, on behalf of the CommonWealth voters who’ve elected Ted Kennedy, Joe Moakley, Barney Frank, Mike Capuano, Tom Menino, Mitt Romney, Will Weld and, way back when , James Michael Curley… that your definition of ‘mild’ (whatever it might be) isn’t theirs….

      <

      p>

      My questions:

      Will anybody pay attention to the so-called race between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown between now and Jan. 4th (the first Monday after the New Year’s holiday)?

      <

      p>Anybody paying attention to last night probably already made their decision.  Or, to put it another way,  if Scott Brown is going to describe himself as ‘independent’, he’s going to have to stop lifting speeches from George W Bush…

      <

      p>

      Will Scott Brown be able to garner more than 35% of the vote come 1/19?

      <

      p>Not if he keeps giving variations of the speech he gave last night, he’s going to come in 4th…

      <

      p>

      Will Alan Khazei be able to turn his ‘government by the people’ mantra into future political opportunity and if so, at what level?

      <

      p>You’ll have to ask him that. I think any future political opportunities for Alan Khazei are strictly a function of his efforts.

      <

      p>

      Is Mike Capuano’s loss really a loss, considering that he went from single digits in the polls into a 28%/185,000 result in 80+ days?

      <

      p>Yeah. It’s a loss. You can blame the compressed schedule, but there’s no evidence to conclude that given a longer schedule he’d have climbed and Coakley’d fallen to the degree necessary to affect a win..

      <

      p>

      Does Mike Capuano’s loss – the uniformity of margins in the ‘burbs and ‘gateway’ cities – spell the end of statewide runs by ethnic, urban pols?  

      <

      p>I think special elections are, indeed, special.  You probably can’t extrapolate trends or generalize all that well.  

      • is nothing more than his way of trying to get votes from the large independent bloc of voters in the Commonwealth. It has nothing to do with independence, as evidenced by his immediate assumption of the language of the national Republican party, along with the sarcastic tongue used to describe Democrats. Of course, you have to understand that Brown, Romney lite, uses Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s mouthpiece throughout his electoral career, as his own mouthpiece and political consultant. Sarcasm and sharp tongued language are the go to modes for Fehrnstrom, a former Herald writer.

  13. It’s a tribute to the hard work of you and your supporters, and some cagey decisions along the way, that you’re our nominee.  You’re going to be a superior Senator and deserve a rich congratulations for a race well won.  I’ll be eager to vote for you in January.

    <

    p>To Mike, you’re a hll of a guy, one hll of a Congressman and I was proud to support you.  Thank heavens you’ll still be in Washington, representing us.

    <

    p>To Alan, I do hope that you don’t give up on elected office due to this one result, but continue your interest in implementing your ideas as an officeholder.  You’ve much to offer on that score.

    <

    p>To Steve…well, I’ve been really impressed with Ray Allen’s defense lately.

  14. great campaigns.  I am so glad that it did not become dirty–defining all 4 of you as classy in my opinion.   I was 100% for Michael Capuano because of he record , but you have been a great AG and I expect you to be an excellent senator.    Dont get distracted by the talk radio right wing slaps during the general election campaign.   You know that they will be going after you relentlessly.  Straight forward truth is the best defense.    

  15. However, I think she was a terrible AG as politics trumped enforcing the laws.

    <

    p>I’d also like to acknowledge all the terribly incorrect predictions on this page about how close their candidates were to beating Martha (Khazei closing the gap…), she wiped the street with all of them. I think many here committed the same mistake that Obama and company did which is if you “wish” something to be true then it will come true. Wrong! I “wish” Scott Brown would beat Martha in the general election but wishing alone will do nothing to make it happen.

    <

    p>I would encourage all BMGers to donate up to $500/each for Scott Brown’s election campaign if for nothing else then to make it a good race.

    • That you regularly give to Democrats, in races in which they shouldn’t be able to win, in order to “make it a good race?”

      • But since Democrats are forever taking my money (taxes) and spending it on things I don’t want (worthless programs) I thought I would return the favor. It was worth asking.

Archives