Please vote for Martha Coakley on Tuesday

[xela]

I am astounded and deeply saddened that there is even a remote possibility of Scott Brown winning the election Tuesday, let alone that polls are running anywhere near 50-50. Obama and the Democrats haven't even had a year yet to try to clean up the mess fourteen years of Republican misgovernance  — from Gingrich's Contract on America, through trotting out the solemn machinery of impeachment over a blow job, a president who was out to lunch for the intelligence briefings warning about Al Queda, selling a cowboy's war of choice to the country on the basis of a pack of lies, promoting torture and destroying our reputation in the world, and, oh yeah, bringing us to the brink of Great Depression II — left us in.

And now it appears that roughly half the likely voters in Massachusetts are willing to let the Republicans back into power.

The key phrase there is likely voters. A lot of the people who turned out last year to make history are now disillusioned with Obama. If you deluded yourself that he was the second coming, as so many people did, you damned well should be disillusioned. Obama doesn't walk on water. But let's give the guy a chance to do what's humanly possible, instead of taking our balls and going home when it turns out he can't fix a mess it took fourteen years to make in one. Get off your butt, go to the polls on Tuesday, and give the guy a chance.

(An no, to forestall that objection, I don't think Martha Coakley is the best Senator Massachusetts could get. But Scott Brown is pretty damned close to the worst.)

Comments

[sammason.livejournal.com]

Good luck with that. I also was concerned by the Obamania as it reminded me too much of the excitement Blair generated at first. But swinging to the Right isn't the answer. Growing up is.

[jered]

I'm extremely disillusioned with Obama, but not enough to not vote against a Republican senator!

I'll take issue with "give the guy a chance to do what's humanly possible," though. At least on gay rights, he's gone out of his way spit on us. For example, his active defense of DOMA, for example, is not something that even Bush did, and his claim that he wants to take a stronger line and have the DOJ defend all cases is belied by the ones that they are ignoring. I think he is a liar and fraud, and a slick manipulator of the progressive voters who helped elect him.

[shaggy-man.livejournal.com]

Regardless, I don't see how sending another Republican to the Senate is going to lead to anything more getting accomplished.

[jered]

Agreed, so I'll still vote for Coakley despite my reservations about the Democratic party. However, had I known then what I knew now, I would have unreservedly voted for Clinton in the primaries.

[pwaa.livejournal.com]

I totally agree, Jered! In fact, I saw this coming back during the primaries. It was the attitudes of the supporters that I noticed the most. The majority of people supporting Obama seemed overly enthusiastic and uninterested in substance: a lot more like fans of a sports team than supporters of a politician. He was new, hip, cool...and his election would be a milestone for civil rights (who cares about women?). I gave money to Clinton's campaign as well as voting for her (unfortunately in MA, where she won by a landslide).

As for Coakley vs. Brown, I'm thinking of voting for Kennedy. I feel like Coakley doesn't deserve my vote if she can't even beat an idiot like Brown in a debate in one of the bluest states there is.

[jered]

Well, to be fair, I was (eventually) enthusiastic too, and was loathe to support Clinton as she is more of the same. But, now, that would be refreshing.

[bluedaisy.livejournal.com]

I'm depressed that this election (which had some interesting candidates in the primary) has come down to "Well, they're both awful, but he's worse than she is". Coakley is *really* not helping herself with the negative ads, saying stupid things in public, etc. I don't think she will keep even the limited promises she's made during the campaign (she *started* the campaign saying that she'd vote against a health care bill that limited abortion coverage, and has subtly backed away from that) but I think Brown *will* vote his key issues, and that's not okay.

All that said, I do think it's oversimplifying to say that it will "let the Republicans back into power", since they will still have a majority, but it will make it harder for the Senate to get things done, which is poor.