Martha Coakley for Senate

Scott Brown is correct that this is “the people’s seat, and “not “Teddy’s seat.”  The Democratic party is not entitled to win the election.  Neither is the Republican party.  The person who should follow Senator Kennedy is the person best suited to improve the lives of those he or she represents.  In this election, that person is Martha Coakley.

This is a critical race for the nation as well as the commonwealth. The results will impact federal health care legislation and have far-reaching consequences for all of us.  With so much misinformation out there, what’s a voter to do?

If you look past the campaign rhetoric and examine the policies, accomplishments and tactics of each candidate, the choice is easy. Scott Brown, despite his claims to be an independent thinker, has accomplished little legislatively to support this claim.  On Beacon Hill, Brown has made a name for himself as a staunchly conservative voice.  He has consistently used his voice to discredit solutions proposed by other legislators, rather than to be constructive and improve proposals and initiatives.  He has proved that he would take the same approach to Washington saying that he would be “proud to be the 41st vote” against the health care bill – he did not say that he will work to improve the bill, but that he will block the bill.  It seems clear that, should he win, he will be a Jeff Sessions Republican, always voting with his party, not independently like a Susan Collins Republican or even a Lindsey Graham Republican.

As a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, I also cannot get past the fact that, in 2005, Brown sponsored an amendment that would have allowed medical personnel to deny emergency contraceptives to rape victims.  The fact that he now has his daughter attack Coakley for reminding voters of that is insulting.

Brown wants us to take a chance on him and, while he is correct that we can kick him out in three years if we don’t like him, the fact remains that three years is plenty of time for him to ensure that Republicans can block progress for the sake of politics.

Martha Coakley, despite running a less-than-inspired campaign, has demonstrated throughout her career intellectual chops and a willingness to stand firm in the face of opposition.  In Washington, she will be an independent thinker who does not automatically vote along party lines.  She has significant experience and has shown a strong commitment to going after those who violate the public trust in her role as Attorney General.   She has worked to coordinate plans for public safety and has gone after those who seek to harm Americans. Her range of experiences will benefit her well in Washington and her commitment to progress will benefit all of us.

I understand that many Brown votes are coming from people trying to send a message to Washington.  However, I submit that the best way to send a message of discontent is to elect someone who will be focused on getting things done and making the country better.  Throughout this campaign, Scott Brown has shown a willingness to lie, exaggerate and distort to get your vote.  And his career has given us every indication he would carry that willingness to Washington.  A vote for Scott Brown is a vote against progress and shows support for the partisan gridlock that has defined Washington for too long.

If we are sick of Senators who are more interested in holding press conferences than affecting progress, let’s elect someone who has proven she will ask the tough questions, work proactively in the legislature and hold people accountable for their actions.  That is what Martha Coakley has done throughout her career and that is what I am convinced she will do as our next Senator.

Please vote next Tuesday and please cast your ballot for Martha Coakley.

If you are unsure of where you should go to vote, you can find out by residential location, at the Election Division website, here:

Posted on January 14, 2010, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. How high was the “experience” bar set for Obama? C’mon you can’t have it both ways. The unintended irony is funny actually.

    • Thank you for your comment and I’m glad you brought up the experience thing. Depending on what you count as relevent experience, the Obama/Biden ticket had as much, if not more, experience than the McCain/Palin ticket. But, if you believe that Obama/Biden did not have the experience they would need to govern effectively, than why support another inexperienced candidate?

  1. Pingback: Link for 1/19 – Martha Coakley for Senate « Sports, Politics and…well, who knows

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: