Coakley on the Edge: 'If I Don't Win, 2010 Is Going to Be Hell for Democrats.'

Massachusetts Voters Alliance has a new ad highlighting Martha Coakley's history of corruption. Evidently Coakley's track record as a politician is just a tad, shall we say, tainted:



Here is a brief roundup of some of Martha's shenanigans:
From the Boston Herald:
Attorney General Martha Coakley has run a shadow Senate campaign for months, shelling out $126,000 from her state campaign account for expenses likely tied to her Capitol Hill bid, including $15,000 for Web site upgrades just days before Sen. Edward M. Kennedy died, records show.

From LowellSun.com

In the Dec. 8 primary election, Massachusetts Democrats chose as their Senate nominee a woman who kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state’s top lawyer, acknowledged yesterday that she improperly filled out a federal financial disclosure she submitted to the US Senate as part of her candidacy in the special election.

Failed to disclose $250,000 in financial assets, according to Boston.com. She ought to fit in well with the Obama administration:

The Globe reported yesterday that Coakley was the only candidate, in disclosures due to the Senate by this week, to report that neither she nor her spouse had any reportable financial asset worth more than $1,000.

But her campaign said Coakley failed to list $200,000 to $250,000 in financial assets that are held by her husband, Thomas F. O’Connor Jr. The campaign said Coakley also failed to note a retirement account she holds that is worth $12,000.

The list of corruption and ethics problems surrounding Martha Coakley is staggering.

The Good news, Rasmussen has Coakley and Brown in a dead heat with a Coakley lead of a mere two points:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley attracting 49% of the vote while her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, picks up 47%.

Three percent (3%) say they’ll vote for independent candidate Joe Kennedy, and two percent (2%) are undecided. The independent is no relation to the late Edward M. Kennedy, whose Senate seat the candidates are battling to fill in next Tuesday’s election.

Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%. To be clear, this lead is among unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the special election.

Also, even better news from NRO who has a report from a spy:

My spy passes along word that Coakley herself fired up the crowd with this inspiring line: "If I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race."

Her defeat was also described as "Waterloo for health care."

Oh nostalgia, a post from the very first day of my blog when the news of the day was health care would be Obama's Waterloo.  

White House Admits They Didn't Put Enough Lipstick on the Health Care Pig

The Washington Examiner's Julie Mason reports the White House now admits to problems with their health care strategy. Gee d'ya think?

With a widely unpopular health care package entering the final throes of negotiation in Congress, a key White House official acknowledged the sales pitch has been mishandled.

"We have to do a better job of explaining to the American people the principle things they will get out of this," Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told MSNBC. "The message is not getting through."

What things would those be I wonder. There are a few reasons they aren't able to formulate an effective sales pitch, the first being the product. The mandate to buy health insurance, higher taxes and a plan that will surely drive the cost of health insurance up in the process are just a few that spring to mind as tough sells. Still, politicians put lipstick on pigs all the time though they'd need an awful lot of lipstick for this sow.

Perhaps a larger problem the Democrats seem to have overlooked is the secrecy. It's tough to get the message out when the whole deal is being cooked up behind closed doors, written with invisible ink and then voted on in the middle of the night.  In other words, it's the transparency stupid.

The White House prefers a different explanation, however:

From the beginning, President Obama embraced a strategy of encouraging congressional buy-in of his top legislative priority by allowing lawmakers to craft their own health care bill. ...

The president in recent days has significantly stepped up his involvement in crafting a final version of the bill, including supporting a decision by Democratic leaders to skip an official conference committee reconciliation in order to work it out in private.

Oh so it wasn't the secrecy and midnight votes after all.  Better to blame the absence of Obama's skillful legislative input.  Well, I stand corrected then.  The White House has a few more rationalizations up it's sleeve such as outrage from the unions and the minor fact that liberals hate the mandate and moderates like Arnold Schwarzenegger have dropped their support.  No one likes it, but that has nothing to do with back room deals, bribes or the hefty price tag, they just didn't put enough lipstick on the pig.  I hope they have lots of lipstick on hand, they're going to need it.

It's The People's Seat

I watched most of the debate earlier between Martha Coakley, Scott Brown and Joseph Kennedy.  Brown was formidable and this was definitely one of his finer moments:




Coakley repeatedly resorted to cheap shots trying to cast Brown as supportive of a measure that would allow emergency rooms to deny treatment to rape victims. Brown shot back that her caricature of his position was abhorrent. Abhorrent is an understatement, here is the amendment Brown proposed:

Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.

If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

Brown merely proposed an amendment that would give religious hospitals or personnel the right to act according to their conscience.  The amendment clearly provides the patient a referral to a provider or facility that will administer contraception at no cost to the patient.  This is a long way away from denying them treatment altogether as Coakley implied.   It says a good deal that this is what she deems her best attack against him though.

David Gergen, as you saw in the video, was biased in his questioning of Brown.  I think they must have injected him with Democratic Kool Aid when he went to work for the Clinton administration.   Brown's response the seat was not Ted Kennedy's but the people's seat was pitch perfect.  Why should anyone vote for a bad health care bill merely because another bad one might not come along for 15 years, the logic astounds me.

Coakley appears to have taken the advice offered in the PPP poll and offers an attack ad tying Brown to Bush and Cheney:  H/T: Hot Air


Which party has all the sweetheart deals with Wall Street? Last I checked Wall Street funded the Obama campaign. The rest of the ad is a lame effort to taint Brown with weak associations. In short, the ad is pretty pathetic and screams desperation. Are Massachusetts voters foolish enough to buy this nonsense? Fortunately, Brown should have plenty of money to counter with his own ad; he raised over a million dollars today, which is double his original goal of $500,000 during today's moneybomb. The grassroots dug deep in their pockets today to support a candidate who would speak for them instead of the health care lobby.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection for linking. Be sure to read his latest post on his experience at Brown Headquarters Part 3. His coverage of this election has been superb.
Linked by Tiger on Politics Thank you!

"Game Change" Revelations on Elizabeth Edwards and Harry Reid

I just returned from taking my daughter back  to college so I have a lot to catch up on here.  On the drive back I listened to the authors of Game Change being interviewed by Sean Hannity.  The revelations from the book are explosive.  I am looking for a copy of the audio from Hannity's show to post; it was fascinating.  Here is a shorter interview from Good Morning America in the mean time:



By the way, I stopped at a few bookstores on the way home to pick up a copy of the book, it was sold out.

UPDATE:  Jill AKA Pundette has the scoop on the Biden/Obama tension that was covered in detail in the Hannity interview.  Because the media was so focused on Sarah Palin, the Biden gaffes and mounting tension between the two never got covered.   Read about the tensions over at Pundit & Pundette

Guess Who's Having A Fundraiser For Martha Coakley?

Alarm bells must be ringing signalling the all-important 60th vote for the health care debacle are on the line.  Who will come running to save the damsel in distress at the last minute,  a team of PhRMA and insurance lobbyists naturally:

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.

Here is a picture of the invite:

 The list of hosts is positively a who's who in health care lobbyists.  Here are just a few of the drug companies and insurance companies that will be represented by the hosts of Coakley's little fundraiser: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health.  I wonder if Martha Coakley would be making arguments on behalf of the people or the drug companies and insurers if she is elected?

Remember the Obama transparency pledge:

“we’ll have [healthcare reform] negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”  

Does C-SPAN get to cover the fundraiser to insure the election of the 60th vote?  Even in the bluest of blue states, whose health care system is said to be the model for the legislation in Congress, there isn't majority support for the health care overhaul:

 Yet, Martha Coakley will be fed a feast of lobbyist dollars to insure she is elected to ram the overhaul through whether the people in Massachusetts or America want it or not.   Donate to elect Scott Brown, we can't afford to sit on the sidelines for this election.