Today we go to the polls to elect someone to represent Massachusetts in the United States Senate. This person will serve the remainder of Edward "Ted" Kennedy's Senate seat which will be up for re-election in November 2012. We have a defining moment in front of us, and I implore you to make the right decision.
Scott Brown has worked his way through the ranks of both the Massachusetts National Guard as well as the MA political system. He served as an assessor and a town selectman for Wrentham, then as state representative for the Ninth Norfolk District. He then won a special election for state senator in 2004 and has served since, serving on a half dozen committees in that time. He has paid his political dues and has the leadership experience and political savvy to serve as our junior senator.
Martha Coakley has served as a District Attorney and as MA Attorney General. She brings a lifetime of judicial experience to the table in this race, but precious little in the legislative branch. She is well-versed in the legal happenings of the state, but her political acumen -as evidenced by her senatorial campaign - is lacking. She would make a formidable choice for elevation to the US Supreme Court - disagreement with her politics aside - but as a senator responsible for working with 99 other senators her experience to date does not offer any glimpse into her suitability for that role.
Scott Brown's views and positions on the issues are what are needed in Washington. He's an unabashed fan of the free market and of lower taxes, for both businesses and taxpayers alike. In his own words:
Government is too big and that the federal stimulus bill made government bigger instead of creating jobs. Taxes are too high and are going higher if Congress continues with its out-of-control spending. Power concentrated in the hands of one political party, as it is here in Massachusetts, leads to bad government and poor decisions. All Americans deserve health care, but we shouldn't have to create a new government insurance program to provide it.In these times of bailouts, "stimulus" plans, and double digit unemployment, it's refreshing to hear a politician state that government is not the answer. Government is never the answer to economic woes - the only thing governments know how to do is regulate and legislate, and placing more restrictions on businesses in unstable economic times only pushes the issue further down the road. Ditto for raising taxes - whether directly on taxpayers or indirectly on businesses, all taxes do is provide government with the means by which to make government bigger, not solve problems.
Martha Coakley's views on the position of government is best expressed in her own words, from her "Issues" position on the Economy (under the heading "Financial Security"):
Martha believes that consumers must be armed with the tools they need to protect themselves from irresponsible financial practices and unwise personal planning and spending. Unrestricted use of credit and credit cards - pushed upon the nation by an industry that itself became addicted to the fees generated - has become a formula for disaster. Martha’s experience as Attorney General has taught her that we cannot rely on the financial industry to fix this mess.
She views people as foolish simps incapable of making their own decisions; even worse, she views the solution to this as more government intervention. It is not - it should never be - the role of the government to protect us from ourselves. Part of being a free people is the freedom to make mistakes, the freedom to ruin your life with poor decisions should you choose to make them. By putting the responsibility not on the free market - who we "cannot rely on" - but on the federal government - who has shown time and time again to have the financial acumen of a fishtank ($800 hammer, anyone).
Another stark difference between these two candidates has been the campaign they have waged for this senate seat. Until the beginning of this year, Martha Coakley's campaign strategy could best be described as "waiting for coronation" - she seemed to think that winning the Democratic nomination meant a cakewalk to the office. She declined to get out and meet the people - "shake hands out in the cold" - even snubbing the Winter Classic, the largest gathering of people in MA during the campaign. Scott Brown was there personally shaking hands, talking to people, having his picture taken, and being seen with the average person on the street.
Martha Coakley was nowhere to be seen - she couldn't even be bothered to send a couple of junior staffers to hold signs.
Coakley's recent attack ads - flooding the airwaves in a pathetic last-ditch effort to save her campaigns - have distorted Senator Brown's words and voting record. The distortions, omissions, half-truths, and misleading statements have been met not with similar attack ads from the Brown campaign but an admonition to stick to the issues. We've seen reporters attacked for asking candidate Coakley questions; we've seen egregious missteps like her puzzling statements about terrorists being gone from Afganistan; we've been treated to the hastily constructed ads that misspell "Massachusetts". And Senator Brown continues his upbeat campaign, unflapped by the accusations of his opponent.
Scott Brown has the experience we need, believes in our Constitution, and has the drive needed to fully represent all of his constituents in the US Senate. He brings over a decade of legislative experience with him as well as definitive leadership skills from his position in the National Guard. He'll also break the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - this means no more late-night, backroom deals where politicians are covertly bribed for their silent acquiescence on ground-breaking legislation.
Please stand with me in voting for Scott Brown today. Massachusetts needs a senator who will listen to the people rather than expecting things to be given to him. Ted Kennedy served as senator for 46 years - he was re-elected at the same time the people of Massachusetts voted in favor of term limits - and faced no credible challengers in his last two re-election campaigns. We don't need another politician who will take us for granted, and Martha Coakley has run her campaign in the mold of someone who will do just that.
Please, vote for Scott Brown for US Senate when you walk into the voting booth today.
That is all.
12 comments:
Please, vote for Scott Brown for US Senate when you walk into the voting booth today.
DONE !
Stickman
GO SCOTT GO!!
GO SCOTT GO!!
5 VOTES that I know of this morning!!
Good luck MASS !
Well, like Old Uncle Tedward's daddy used to say, "Vote here, and vote often."
Here's to the next nail in the Kennedy coffin.
Go Scott Go!
GO SCOTT GO!
Fingers crossed that he goes to DC and kicks some butt, takes some names, and never votes "present".
Really Jay, did you write this? "She would make a formidable choice for elevation to the US Supreme Court". Martha Coakley?
Well, if I may interpret your statement to infer that Supreme Court Justices or US Attorneys should decide or argue cases before the Court based on their 'feelings' and or personal or political agenda, rather than on the merits of the law, then yes, Coakley would be an ideal appointment to the highest court of our nation.
For nine years our family fought against an illegal tax all the way to the MA SJC. Coakley filed an amicus brief in support of the cities and towns. In the brief she argued that if the outcome of the decision would adversely effect the ability of our cities and towns to collect fees, based on established legal precedent, then the precedent must be wrong or flawed, and therefore should be not be considered, or should be overlooked. You see, Coakley believes that the State Legislature's sole authority as the governing body to levy taxes in the Commonwealth should not override the ability of our cities and towns to raise additional revenue. No worries though, if Martha loses her quest to replace Paul Kirk as our junior Senate Legislator, Obama can appoint her to the Supreme Court to pass laws from there.
Let me know if you would like to read the brief, I can request a copy from our attorneys office.
Read what I wrote carefully. I never said she'd make a good Justice, but a "formidable" "appointee".
Female. Check.
Uber liberal. Check.
Willing to rule based on feeeeeeelings. Check.
Tell me she's not Barack Øbama's wet dream USSC pick?
Um, I know that you want to say something nice about Coakley, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that she has an even basic respect for the Constitution. Rather, her record is one of using the legal system to advance her power.
Me, I don't want her within a hundred miles of a supreme court seat, but maybe that's just me.
Neither do I.
But you've got to admit, she's got the kind of pedigree that makes leftist presidents drool...
Thanks for the clarification Jay.
However, you may appreciate my dismay at reading formidable in describing Martha Coakley. Webster’s definition of formidable, 1. causing dread, fear, or awe. 2. hard to handle or overcome. Synonyms include; alarming, frightening, dreadful, fearsome, redoubtable, terrifying, difficult, terrible, tough, daunting, arduous, intimidating, impressive, remarkable, astounding, awesome, amazing and insignificant (antonym). As you can see, formidable, as an adjective used to describe a candidate, can easily convey a complimentary or derogatory meaning. Guess it all boils down to what or whom you are describing and your perception of the described. Today, I am hoping that Scott Brown proves to be the formidable opponent in this race, and Martha Coakley the antonym.
Your humble reader, k
Post a Comment