It’s a difficult position Obama is in, in regards to the Massachusetts Senate race. After campaigning for Corzine in New Jersey and Deeds in Virginia, and having them both fail spectacularly, he’s going to be naturally reluctant to put his weight behind another candidate who might fail. But it looks like he’s going to go. I guess they really can’t take a chance of losing Massachusetts at this point. This article says it’s the a questionable decision, pointing out:
Obama has a net favorable rating in MA, according to public and private polls. A Suffolk Univ. poll out today shows 55% of MA voters viewing him favorably, while just 35% see him unfavorably. But the intensity of voters who view him unfavorably, or who disapprove of his job performance, is so high that an appearance with Coakley could bring out more GOPers ready to vote for Brown than it could Dems set on their nominee.
“Obama is radioactive in polls,” said one senior Dem operative who has seen the campaign’s internal numbers. “Every time they dropped his name in a poll, it was awful. So you just can’t take those kinds of chances.”
Personally, I would advise Obama to go if I were his political advisor. If he goes and loses, his presidency takes a hit from losing a Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts to the GOP. If he doesn’t go and loses, his presidency takes a hit from political failure, because the political earthquake that a Brown victory in Massachusetts would cause certainly will frustrate, if not outright derail the Administrations agenda. Everyone knows this race is important. Victory is really the only option that works for Obama, so he has to try to achieve it.
But from our perspective, there is no better way to but the kibosh on all this nonsense than by sending Scott Brown to the United State Senate, so if you live in Massachusetts, be sure to get out to vote next Tuesday for Brown.
UPDATE: More bad news for the Dems.
Can somebody tell me how Scott Brown isn’t a lousy version of George W. Bush (another east coast Republican)?
Can somebody tell me who the “various Libertarian sweetheart of the moment” attention whore is?
He’s more conservative than most Massachusetts candidates typically can get away with, and he has a chance of winning.
In case it isn’t clear enough, neither of the two comments identify a reason why a voter in Massachusetts should vote for Brown. “More conservative” is a pretty generic claim. Voted against more gun control or voted to reduce government spending would be examples that would be somewhat responsive if indeed Brown could claim either.
I am not saying there may not be reasons to vote for Brown (besides the R after his name on the ballot), but I haven’t seen any yet.
Brown has a pretty good track record on guns issues for Massachusetts, as reflected in the fact that he’s carrying an NRA endorsement, and Coakley is carrying a Brady Campaign endorsement. Bitter can go into more detail on his record on guns than I can.
But either way, my main concern is not Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, it’s what’s going on in the country as a whole, and what a Brown victory is going to portend for the Democrats. If Brown wins, health care, if not dead is severely weakened. Stopping health care right now needs to be priority number one. If you love liberty, we have to stop it.
That’s why I could care less about the Libertarian in the race. He has no chance. He is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the race, and thus to the bigger picture.
And I say that as someone who was once registered with the Libertarian Party. They are folks more interested in arguing about what libertarianism is, and otherwise waxing philosophical, than building a real movement to garner influence in politics. In short, I am done with them. I’d actually like to see some pro-liberty ideas get out of their parents basements, and start making a difference in this world, and the Libertarian Party is never going to be a vehicle for that.
I’ll admit, I’m going to wait to respond on specifics of Brown’s record until tomorrow when the beer wears off. But, yes, be prepared for a smackdown of epic proportions on that front. You’re talking to a former Massachusetts resident who was heavily involved in gun politics.
I will add something to my point earlier. Even when you try to go the “mainstream, more GOP” route of pet links, I notice that you still have to choose the chapter of the organization that’s run by one of the most libertarian staffers. Really, you have no idea how much I laughed about that when I saw your response earlier tonight. Not that I’m laughing at the Arizona chapter because at least Tom is engaged in political reality.
I live in Arizona so the choice of chapter isn’t surprising.
But the libertarianish nature is still worth noting. If you’re on their email list, I suspect you can tell the difference between the national emails and the Arizona ones. The point still stands.