This blog is still alive, just in semi-hibernation.
When I want to write something longer than a tweet about something other than math or sci-fi, here is where I'll write it.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

A letter from a friend in Massachusetts


My friend Jim from Massachusetts sent me a letter that he's asked me to print on the blog concerning today's special election.

====

In Massachusetts we are having an election today. A few weeks ago it wasn't that big of a deal. After all it was to fill a seat held by Ted Kennedy for 47 years. Of course we would elect a Democrat to fill that position, or would we?

While we are a typically blue state we did give the country Mitt Romney, something I still feel quite embarrassed about.

On Tuesday we will fill that famous senate seat. However the polls are very close between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. (there is a libertarian candidate named Kennedy, no relation, who is in a distant third that it is not worth mentioning).

Anyway here is my rant, for what it's worth. Scott Brown is not presenting himself as a moderate but clearly on the right side of the party. He stands for the policies that created the mess we are in. While I am not pleased in general with everything the Democrats and Obama have done, going back to the party and policies that have brought us to the brink is clearly a bad idea.

We have not (so far) repeated the great depression, but the situation is still bad. Things haven't improved as quickly as we'd like, and in my opinion this is because the administration has held on to too many of the failed policies of the past and not moved forward with the promises they made.

I know the American collective memory is short, but you think they would remember at least a year and a half back.

8 comments:

Fran said...

Jim from Massachusetts has the good words.

I live 30 minutes from the Massachusetts border and we got lots of news from the Bay State here.

Martha Cokely is not the greatest, but Scott Brown is pretty close to the worst for the very reasons that are stated in this post.

47th Problem of Euclid said...

Cesar Millan could train a stray Rottweiler to run a better Senatorial campaign than Martha Coakley ran. She started the race 30 points ahead, and lost her lead being a lousy candidate. Scott Brown is a pathetic joke whose biggest selling point is that he drives a truck, but he ran a tough, dogged, persistent campaign, took a heavy populist tone for his people-hating Republican policies, and voters responded. Coakley on the other hand refused to shake hands with voters who turned out for her rallies, thought Curt Schilling was a Yankee, and spelled Massachusetts wrong in a TV ad.

The whole time, there was a much better candidate, Congressman Mike Capuano, the best congressman I've ever had. Mike responds every time I've written to him, and I've had the pleasure of meeting him, and he's been very approachable. He's smart, ethical, committed to progressive issues (voted against Iraq originally), and has worked with Kennedy on the Hill quite extensively. Coakley had more state-wide exposure as the MA AG, but a smart Democratic Party strategist would have vetted them both as candidates and poured DNC money into the campaign of the best candidate because they would have understood how crucial the 60th Senate seat is for their agenda. This isn't rocket science. Instead the DNC arrogantly regarded the seat as a done deal and sat on their asses and did nothing while an inferior candidate threw the campaign, the equivalent of losing a slam-dunk contest to Dr. Ruth.

I also have to take progressives to task for voting for a woman over voting for the best candidate. Now, in the name of feminism, they are going to lose votes crucial to the feminist cause.

Finally, why does the DNC strategy require a super-majority at all? When was the last time the DNC dared the GOP to filibuster and face the wrath of the nation? And while they still are a super-majority, why don't the change back the filibuster rules so that a filibuster must have someone talking the whole time, a la Mr. Smith Goes To Washington? The Founding Fathers never intended for 41 Senators to hold the country hostage just by bluffing.

Matty Boy said...

Paralysis with a supermajority is a disgusting sight. Living in California, I get a double dose of this in the papers every day. We in the Golden State have the excuse that the governor is a Republican, but it still means the balanced budget is nearly impossible to pass except through lying.

CDP said...

47th Problem said it very well. I can't stand the idea of Senator Kennedy's seat going to a Republican but if it happens, the blame falls right at the feet of Martha Coakley and the Democratic party.

dguzman said...

Well, at least Jim will vote for Martha. Right?

namastenancy said...

I just saw the news that Coakley has lost. The papers are crowing that it's a defeat for Obama. I don't know if I understand politics enough to say if this is true but it (again), give Repubs a voting majority in the Senate. So, we can kiss some much needed reform good by.

Matty Boy said...

No Nancy. The split is now 59-41 and they can threaten filibuster. It's not a majority, but it can be a minority that stops everything unless the Dems show some spine.

namastenancy said...

Thanks for the info - but the Democrats have yet to grow one so I'm afraid that the train of reform gets derailed here. I often wonder where people's brains are that they rejoice in an electoral victory which can (probably) will result in their lives being made more difficult.