Massachusetts Senate Race
(1 votes) (report abuse)
|
President Obama taped an endorsement for Coakley
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iylgBF3KTQA&feature=player_em This race is really getting interesting. Last Monday the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, stunned everyone by raising $1.3 million in a single day. Even more stunning is this: “Knowledgeable sources in Massachusetts tell The Daily Caller that Republican candidate for Senate, Scott Brown, has raised at least $1 million dollars every day this week, most of it online. Although Brown’s campaign touted Monday’s money-bomb fundraiser that brought in $1.3 million dollars, the campaign declined to confirm totals for other days this week. ‘I can’t comment on figures,’ said spokesman Felix Browne.” [Emphasis mine.] http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/14/exclusive-republican-scott |
|
|
Coakley hasn't really run
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
She thought she was a slam dunk. Skipped campaigning for the most past and has made several gaffes. Big deal. I don't live in MA. and couldn't give a hoot anyway. If Brown is elected, sworn in and then helps to defeat health care reform as he has promised to do it will backfire. |
|
|
Palin?
|
 (4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| Why should she go to Massachusetts? Brown can win this on his own. It is time for the Kennedy democratic dynasty to end. Progressive liberalism has shown its true colors with Obama. People do not want nanny government, we want liberty and freedom. Oh yeah and by the way, I love Sarah Palin. | |
|
For the uhhhh Ladies?
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude- | |
|
re:
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| Heard this morning that Brown has a 51% approval rating...this shall be interesting. I think Coakley stepped on her own tongue by saying there weren't terrorists in Afghanistan right after a bunch of CIA agents were killed and it was claimed by Al Queda not 24 hours prior to her saying that in a debate. | |
|
RE: re:
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Close but not quite. What Ms. Coakley really said. Verbatim. Coakley was referring to Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan Coakley: "Let's focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is." Coakley's comments were made during a January 11 debate at the University of Massachusetts. Moderator David Gergen asked Coakley, "[H]ow do you think we then succeed in Afghanistan?" Coakley replied: "I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was -- and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They're gone. They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan. Let's focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is." She added: "[T]he focus should be getting the appropriate information on individuals who are trained, who represent a threat to us, and use the force necessary to go after those individuals." What our Generals say seems to mesh with her statement. Military and security experts and officials agree that Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan is "diminished" Jim Jones: "The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. ... No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." On October 4, 2009, CNN's John King asked national security adviser Jim Jones, "[D]oes the return of the Taliban in your view, sir, equal the return of a sanctuary for al Qaeda?" Jones responded: "Well, I think this is one of the central issues and, you know, it could. Obviously, the good news is that Americans should feel at least good about in Afghanistan is that the Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." [State of the Union, 10/4/09] Wash. Post: Senior U.S. military intelligence official says Al Qaeda has "fewer than 100 members" in Afghanistan. Reporting on "the relative decline of Al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan, The Washington Post wrote: "Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official estimated that there are 300 al-Qaeda members in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the group is based, compared with tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents on either side of the border." [The Washington Post, 11/11/09] NY Times: Senior White House official stated that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported that a senior Obama administration official stated that "Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan." [The New York Times, 10/7/09] Petraeus: "Al Qaida, if you will -- is not based, per se, in Afghanistan." In a May 2009 interview, King said to Petraeus, "No Al Qaida at all in Afghanistan. Is that an exaggeration, General Petraeus, or is that true?" Petraeus responded: PETRAEUS: No, I would agree with that assessment. Certainly, Al Qaida and its affiliates. Again, remember that this is, as I mentioned earlier, a syndicate of extremist organizations, some of which are truly transnational extremists. In other words, don't just conduct attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India, but even throughout the rest of the world, as we saw in the U.K. a couple of years ago. They do come in and out of Afghanistan, but the Al Qaida -- precise Al Qaida, if you will -- is not based, per se, in Afghanistan, although its elements and certainly its affiliates -- Baitullah Mehsud's group, commander Nazir Khaqani (ph) network and others, certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of eastern Afghanistan. And then the Afghan Taliban, of course, has a number of districts in which it has its fighters and its shadow government, if you will, even. But I think, no, I think that's an accurate assessment, and that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan -- that very, very mountainous, rugged terrain just east of the Afghan border and in the western part of Pakistan -- is the locus of the leadership of these organizations, although they do, again, go into Afghanistan, certainly, and conduct operations against our troops, and have tried, certainly, to threaten all the way to Kabul at various times. [State of the Union, 5/10/09] AP: McChrystal stated, "I do not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan now." The Associated Press reported, "The top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan said Friday he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country, but says the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents," and quoted Gen. Stanley McChrystal at the Dutch Defense Ministry commenting, "I do not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan |
||
|
RE: re:
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Wow! Care to defend Martha Coakley's record as Massachusetts Attorney General and her remark that Roman Catholics probably shouldn't work in emergency rooms as well? The Amiraults of Massachusetts (Fells Acres day care): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428120457500 Coakley made deal in 1995 priest (Father Geoghan, the pedophile priest) case: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31413.html Coakley: “You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.” Audio here: http://wbsm.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=19654&nID=1 |
||
|
RE: re:
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
I do not care to defend anyone. I do question what you or I may or may not know about any of this, other than the late hour nature of these articles and their potential affect on the outcome of a Senate race. Aside from these articles, tell us what you know. CGM posted that Ms. Coakley had made stupid statements regarding terrorists in Afghanistan. I provided a counterpoint that her comments were being taken out of context and that they were not that far off from what other credible people have said. This is all about the GOP gaining a seat in the Senate to derail the Obama agenda. Millions in out of state money are pouring into a race (on both sides) that should be decided by MA. voters. Neither of us lives in MA. and none of the local issues that should decide this election have anything to do with us. She may or may not be a poor choice for a Senator, the very same could be said for Mr. Brown. No outrage over the fact that he posed naked for a national magazine eh? Awfully select set of morals you have. |
||
|
RE: re:
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
RE: “This is all about the GOP gaining a seat in the Senate to derail the Obama agenda.” Yup, it's a referendum on ObamaCare. RE: “Millions in out of state money are pouring into a race (on both sides) that should be decided by MA. voters.” It will be decided by MA voters. RE: “No outrage over the fact that he posed naked for a national magazine eh?” I guess maybe you subscribe to the stereotype that all conservatives are prudes. Hate to be the one to break it to you but, although the Cosmo centerfolds were somewhat silly, it's not exactly hardcore porn. |
||
|
RE: re:
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
RE: “No outrage over the fact that he posed naked for a national magazine eh?” I guess maybe you subscribe to the stereotype that all conservatives are prudes. Hate to be the one to break it to you but, although the Cosmo centerfolds were somewhat silly, it's not exactly hardcore porn. Just wanted your opinion, you gave it honestly and freely. Thanks. I await the outcome of the Tuesday special election. |
||
|
RE: re:
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
One other question, if you don't mind. Are you as upset about SEIU's (out-of-state money) support for Coakley in purchasing a $685,000 ad for her and pulling out all the stops to get her elected as you are by the grass-roots conservative donations pouring in for Brown? http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/union http://www.seiu888.org/ |
||
|
RE Re Re
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Gixa, I wrote this. "Millions in out of state money are pouring into a race (on both sides) that should be decided by MA. voters." It seems pretty clear, but to clarify further. I am not upset about anything. However, out of state money should not be used to influence a State election, be it from the SEIU or what you label as "grass-roots Conservative Donations" If you believe the massive amounts of money "pouring" in for Mr. Brown are from individual donors then I have a Bridge to sell you that goes nowhere. Even if these donations are from individuals outside of MA. they have no place in a State election. Would you appreciate it if people from Florida attempted to influence an election in Montana. I know I wouldn't. At some point Mr Brown will have to show his donor list, it will be among the more interesting facets of this race. Think any of the $$$ come from the Health Insurance industry or big Pharma? |
|
|
RE: RE Re Re
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Not making any accusations, Rightof Left, I am sincerely curious. I am upset by the SEIU involvement because I see them totally as special interest. (I'm also concerned about their ties to ACORN due to ACORN's difficulties with voter fraud allegations and convictions.) The way I see it, the gloves came off when SEIU became so heavily involved. And, yes, I do believe much of the money pouring in for Brown is from grass-roots, internet donations. RE: “Would you appreciate it if people from Florida attempted to influence an election in Montana.” I would appreciate it if one party was attempting to put a lock on a Senate seat for their side by bringing in their own people and funding from out of state. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Brown's donations came from health insurers but I thought big Pharma preferred to cut deals with the White House. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confi |
||
|
Coakley-Brown election important to us all
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Rightof left; You don't care about what's going on in Mass.?? It doesn't effect you? That seems a little near-sighted to me. I'll admit that Coakley getting elected won't change the political landscape much but, Brown winning it could make a huge difference that would effect the entire country. The fact that only 1/3 of the country likes the Healthcare bill doesn't seem to mean much to the Democrats in Washington. (I always thought "Democrat" was taken from the word "democracy" but I guess they don't have anything in common) I don't know all the issues involved in Mass. but the fact that Brown will vote against that bill could put an end to it, and that would be a huge blow to Obama. Not to mention the message it should send to the rest of the Democratic party. Imagine, Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat going to a Republican. How ironic! Dems would have to acknowledge how totally out of line they have are. The voters of Mass. already know how bad a public health system (or government managed one) is. If Brown should win that would send a pretty clear message. As for out of state donations, I think that when a state election could have profound implications for the entire country, it's only right that the entire country should have some say. In the end, it's still the voters of Mass. who have the final say. The tangent that you went on concerning Al Qaeda seems to miss the point about terrorists. I thought the same thing when Jones made his comments on how Al Qaeda was not a big deal in Afghanistan. I realize that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two different groups, but what's the difference, really? If you are being attacked by a pack of dogs you don't tell yourself; "This isn't so bad, there's only one pitbull in the whole bunch." |
|
|
RE: Coakley-Brown election important to us all
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Tangent? That subject was brought up by another poster. She repeated a charge made by many right wing conservative media outlets. I merely added some facts from another view point. "I don't know all the issues involved in Mass. but the fact that Brown will vote against that bill could put an end to it, and that would be a huge blow to Obama. Not to mention the message it should send to the rest of the Democratic party." I hope Brown is elected and does vote against Health Care. It will shine more of a spotlight on the fact that the Legislature is being held hostage by the minority with the threat of a Filibuster. The Constitution has been subverted by the use of this tactic and most recently it has been the GOP doing the hostage taking. You are against Health Care reform, that's fine. You want to punish Obama, again your prerogative. I want to see a functioning Government. Currently we have anything but. |
||
|
biggest blunder
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| was knocking Curt Schillings...she must be out of touch with reality you don't knock Redsox nation when in Mass. | |
|
The Boston Globe live election coverage
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
“9:13 p.m. -- Coakley has conceded in a call to Scott Brown, according to a Brown aide.” http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/live_ |
|
|
Brown vs. Coakley
|
(4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| YIPPEE!!! Brown won!!! I can't wipe the smile off my face!!!! | |
|
RE; RE; C vs B Important
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
R of L: I'm certainly not against healthcare reform, I'm against healthcare takeover. That's what most people are opposed to. I suspect you feel the same way. I think Congress could come up with a much better bill than what they seem to have done so far. If it were such a good plan now, they wouldn't have had to make so many outlandish deals in order to get the votes they needed. Brown's election is a great example of how the American system works and how people can voice their opinions about what the leadership is doing. My one concern though, is that if not for the fact that this was a special election to fill a vacant seat, that voice could have been ignored until this November. There's still a chance that could happen. Reconciliation is not out of the question. We'll see. I don't want to punish Obama but I sure do want to stop him. Maybe that is the same thing. I think his idea of what this country should be like is totally wrong. |
|
