Wednesday, January 13, 2010
It's getting ugly out there!
At NRO, Michael Graham is admitting that Scott Brown has a chance now: Turning Point in Massachusetts
...everything changed yesterday.
The video of the Coakley staffer -- most likely DNC hack and former Kerry campaigher Michael Meehan -- shoving The Weekly Standard's John McCormack to the ground, and then repeatedly shoving him again and again in view of AG Coakley, is a watershed moment. It could turn out to be a campaign killer.
First, it highlights the fact that Coakley had left Massachusetts to attend a lobbyist fundraiser in D.C.. Taking big bucks from Big Pharma in the middle of this fight? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Then there's the guy who got shoved. McCormack is the reporter who asked the question about Afghanistan that literally stopped Coakley in her tracks. After a few blinks of incomprehension, she answered by asking, "Does anyone ELSE have a question?" This issue is a disaster for Coakley because it reveals her utter lack of experience or (apparently) basic knowledge on foreign policy, just two weeks after a terrorist successfully got on a U.S. airplane...
More from Graham in the Boston Herald, here: Rage against machine
More about that Coakely lobbyist fundraiser at the Wall Street Journal: The health-care industry rides to the Democratic rescue. - '...the host committee for the fundraiser at Pennsylvania Avenue's Sonoma Restaurant includes lobbyists for Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Novartis and sundry other drug companies that have been among the biggest of ObamaCare's corporate sponsors. Other hosts--who have raised at least $10,000 for Ms. Coakley--include representatives from UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana and other insurers. As far as we can tell, the insurance industry claims to oppose ObamaCare's current incarnation...'
And at Legal Insurrection, a lobbyist for Coakley is on video saying "without lobbyists this town wouldn't work."
And the shoving business that everyone's talking about? At The Corner: Is the Coakley Camp Resorting to Physical Violence?
What's going on there? That's Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack being shoved to the ground by Coakley "worker" Michael Meehan. In addition to the link above, here's McCormack himself ID'ing the perp: Assailant Was a Coakley Staffer on Loan from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee?
From the NRO post above, McCormack describes what happened:
As I walked down the street, a man who appeared to be associated with the Coakley campaign pushed me into a freestanding metal railing. I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine. He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street.
He asked if I was with the media, and I told him I work for THE WEEKLY STANDARD. When I asked him who he worked for he replied, "I work for me." He demanded to see my credentials, and even though it was a public street, I showed them to him.
I eventually got around him and met up with the attorney general halfway down the block.
"Attorney General, could I ask you a question please?" I said. "We're done, thanks," Coakley replied. She walked back toward the restaurant, apparently searching for her car. She remained silent as I (politely) repeated my question.
Coakley staffers told me they didn't know who the man was who pushed me, though by every indication he was somehow connected to the campaign.
Let's go to the tape. Here's the video of the brief Q&A with Coakley outside the fundraiser where she refuses to answer a question about her odd statement about Afghanistan (asked by McCormack):
And here's the best video of what happened after that:
McCormack describes the incident himself, here.
The Boston Globe? They say McCormack "stumbled", while the Democrats are calling the incident a Republican dirty trick. You cannot make this stuff up.
Now, about what was going on in that fundraising dinner: Coakley to Fundraisers: 'If I Don't Win, 2010 Is Going to Be Hell for Democrats.' - "...My spy passes along word that Coakley herself fired up the crowd with this inspiring line: "If I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race." Her defeat was also described as "Waterloo for health care."..."
The Globe reports that the SIEU is planning a huge negative ad buy for Coakley: "...The ad taken out by the Service Employees International Union, will begin airing statewide tomorrow [today]. The buy size is $685,000, one of the largest of the election..."
Speaking of unions, DaTechguy reports that the teachers' union (his union) is sending out mailers in support of Coakley. He's voting Brown.
Ben Smith has the attack ads.
Look! Doug Flutie (and Steve Sweeney) endorse Scott:
The Globe profiles Coakley here: In short race, Coakley picks targets carefully.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Buyer's Remorse - "Mike Barnicle had a good analysis of the Mass. Senate race this morning on Morning Joe. Coakley isn't a good candidate, and Brown has likability, fiscal conservatism, an independent streak at a time when people are fed up and suffering from "buyer's remorse" about Barack Obama (this is from memory)..."
Via RedMassGroup, here's the state Republican Party's response to Coakley:
Michelle Malkin says Coakley is The voice for Fat Cats and Corruptocrats.
Finally, for now, since when did Tea Party become synonymous with Libertarian Party? The Tea Partyers I know are voting for Brown. There are times for protest or votes on ideological purity -- maybe...sometimes...but not often -- but this is NOT one of them. The stakes are too high. This is going to be close and every vote for Scott Brown counts.
The highly coveted Flutie endorsement!
Leftwing thuggery, knows no bounds.
Don't laugh about Flutie, he's still very popular around here!
Im an unabashed Flutie fan!
I heard Scott Browns average donoation yesterday was $77.
This guy Brown is growing on me ... I might even vote for him.
I love Coakley's comments about how important the 60th vote (hers) will be, and how tragic it will be for Democrats if she's defeated.
'Scuse me, but the lack of a 60th vote simply means that Democrats can be stopped with a filibuster. Are they claiming that they're not up for this? Not even the watered-down filibusters we see these days?
The purpose of the 60th vote for the Democrats is the ability to pretend that Republicans don't exist. This is fundamentally anti-democratic -- not to get 60 Senate seats, but to *actively seek* 60 enate seats *for that reason*. Why is the press not up in arms about this?
(I know, I know. It was a rhetorical question.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Did you see the tough questions that Gergen gave Brown, then threw up some softballs for Coakley?
"With all due respect, it's not the Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
Brown correcting Gergen, priceless!
actually it's my wife's union but thanks for the link.