Progressives in Massachusetts have a choice over the next week: we can gossip and guess about polls, wondering which pollster will be right, which will be wrong; or we can devote ourselves to the most consequential federal election in this state in nearly two decades.
There’s really no use in disputing that Scott Brown has developed a potential path to victory. The likelihood that he’ll be able to make his way down that path, well, it’s substantial enough to demand our attention. I’ve been phonebanking for the past ten days, and I can tell you that a non-trivial percentage of folks with Ds after their names are not solidly in Martha Coakley’s corner.
Barack Obama is the most progressive president in a generation. His domestic agenda would be derailed if Brown were to win. His signature bill—health care reform—would be nearly dead in its tracks. A Brown victory would be the first step towards an even more toxic version of the Clinton/Gingrich showdown that marked the mid-90s. If you’re a progressive, and you know there’s a chance of that happening, you have to take action! Phone bank: http://www.marthacoakley.com/e… Donate: https://coakley.zissousecure.c… Put up a sign; a bumper sticker; work your tail off for Martha Coakley.
The choice is a stark one, make it known.
Does Mass. support policies that stimulate the economy and promote green jobs? Or does it support global warming denialism?
Does Mass. support federal aid to states to keep teachers, policemen, and firemen on the payroll? Or should we leave the states, our children, and our safety behind, sacrficed at the altar of tax cuts for the wealthy?
Does Mass. support brining health insurance to 40 million uninsured? Or shall we just kick the can down the road another fifteen years—the uninsured be damned?
Does Mass. believe that the policies of George W. Bush’s Republican party caused this economic mess that we’re diligently trying to work our way out of? Or can we simply shrug off those policies because, hey, Scott Brown drives a truck?
Does Mass. believe that we shouldn’t cave to terrorists by shuddering our courts and scrambling to set up military tribunals—only to see them, $200 million later, be overruled by the Supreme Court? Or should we engage in empty sloganeering about being “lawyered up” and pretend that militarry tribunal defendants are denied counsel?
Does Mass. understand that our structural budget deficits are due, in substantial part, to health care spending and that any hope of fixing them starts there? Or do we embrace Scott Brown’s empty nonsense that he’ll somehow cut taxes, increase defense spending, and protect social security and Medicare all at once?
Does Mass. believe, for one second, that if a female candidate posed nude, she would ever contend for public office? Can we similarly dismiss the male model? Or should we be comforted that Scott Brown is better known for his current suit choice—that of empty?
Does Mass. support reforming the financial sector, so that it cannot overleverage itself and once again bring our economy to its knees? Or should we elect an individual who, along with the rest of his party, will stonewall any type of meaningful reform?
Does Mass. support a dedicated public servant who has spent two decades working on its behalf? Or a state senator without a single legislative success?
Will we honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy by finaly passing a bill on his single issue? Or will we elect someone who voted for nearly the same bill in Mass. but has turned on it out of political expediency?
Do we know that pro-freedom means pro-individual rights, including procreative choice and equality for all? Or do we embrace the Orwellian logic that we must torture to be free?
One candidate ran on her resume. The other candidate, who has no resume, ran a campaign. Luckily Martha has begun to campaign in earnest. She needs our support. Even a 5% chance of a loss is far too great.
We normally look at battleground states from afar. Now we’re smack in the middle of the battle ground. IT’S WELL PAST TIME TO ACT LIKE IT.