Color me disappointed in Martha Coakley. There’s a new ad running in this, the last week preceding Tuesday’s special election, and it’s a negative ad. I was hoping she’d avoid it, but alas, ’twas not to be. Here’s the ad:
Aside from the negative tone, Coakley is being hypocritical; yes, Scott Brown absolutely will follow the GOP leadership and national platform, but to suggest that she won’t follow suit on the Democratic side is absurd.
Amusingly, I just received this press release from Sen. Brown’s camp:
“Instead of discussing issues like health care and jobs, Martha Coakley decided the best way to stop me is to tear me down. But the old way of doing things won’t work anymore. Her attack ads are wrong and go too far. Massachusetts voters are paying attention to this election and they deserve better than tired, old gutter politics.”
Put the brakes on the Righteous Indignation Express there, Scott. I receive about six e-mails a day from Brown’s camp, and here is a sampling of various headers and passages from press releases:
By signaling her openness to a “war tax,” Martha Coakley is again demonstrating just how willing she is to place additional burdens on working families instead of looking for ways to cut back on spending. It’s almost as if she wants to punish people for supporting a war she opposes.
Accepting this money shows that Martha Coakley is already playing the role of the Washington insider. If she becomes the nominee we should expect more money from more special interest groups trying to influence this election.
Cap and trade is anti-jobs and anti-growth. It would be bad for our economy and bad for working families…Massachusetts can’t afford Martha Coakley’s giant new tax on energy.
Scott Brown announces the Martha Coakley tax bill.
Martha Coakley will be a rubber stamp for the tax and spend policies that will hurt our economy.
Those are just from the last couple of months in 2009. I didn’t even tap the stuff I got so far in 2010.
So, to recap: Martha Coakley is a hypocrite for saying Brown will be slavishly loyal to the party (which is true) and Scott Brown is a hypocrite for chastising Coakley for running negative (which is true).
Screw it, I’m voting for Kodos.
The views and opinions in the Enterprise blogs are those of the author and are not neccessarily shared by Falmouth Publishing.
I’m voting for Kang. He uses a smaller stick and whip.
I agree. I can’t stand either of these people right now.
I’m tired of rederick. I want facts and how “they” stand not what they want to imply the competition stands for. Cut the BS people.
I just got this one from the Brown campaign, referring to a recent confrontation between a Coakley staffer and a reporter.
“First Martha Coakley refused to debate her opponent, then she avoids meeting with Massachusetts voters at all costs and now her campaign is resorting to physical intimidation in response to a reporter who was attempting to ask a relevant question about her confusing and misguided position on Afghanistan.”
And yet the GOP is chiding Coakley for focusing on non-issues that distract voters from the real issues. That’s comedy.
And the whole “Martha Coakley avoided debating Scott Brown” accusation is asinine, inaccurate, and disgustingly arrogant. She was there to debate not just Brown, but the other candidate who will appear on Tuesday’s ballot; this was a three-way race, not a two-way as much as the Republican Party wishes otherwise (poor babies, their candidate had to participate in a fully inclusive political process).
The GOP wanted to shut Joe Kennedy out of the debates when he had as much right to be there as Coakley or Brown, and Coakley didn’t play into the game, and wound up showing more respect for the voting public than Brown and his people claim they show: Brown has repeatedly crowed about how this isn’t a race for Ted Kennedy’s seat, but the “people’s seat.”
Well, Senator Brown, Joe collected signatures from at least 10,000 registered voters…you know, the people to whom the seat belongs.