Why is everyone surprised that Brown won?

Here's a few good pieces on Martha Coakley's loss yesterday.  I hesitate to read too much into her loss as a national bellweather, but I suspect that the hacks and talking heads will play this up because it is easy and can fit into 30 second 'debates.'

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/greider

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/01/19/lessons_of_massachusetts

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/20/exit-poll-of-mass/

Here's why I think Coakley lost:
1.  She was a bland and uninspiring candidate.
2.  She was way too quiet in December, when she could have set the tone of the election.
3.  Scott Brown had a lot of help in the last two weeks, and came off very well AFTER the debates had aired.  Most independent/undecided voters don't watch debates.  They are more easily influenced by ads and word of mouth, and tend to focus on a few small issues.

4.  Voters in Massachusetts have elected 3 Republican governors since 1989.  Is it that hard to believe that they wouldn't vote for a moderate like Brown?  (Ignoring the fact that he will now have to march lockstep with a Republican minority in the Senate that is much more conservative than the voters in Massachusetts envisioned when they voted for him.)

My favorite analysis came from my cousin:

"A year ago everyone and his sister was telling me to vote for obama, i didnt, now a year later those same people are telling me to vote for scott brown, i didnt, for gods sake you elected obama for change, he is one vote away from giving that to you and your trying to stop it...its not Washington that's f'd..its you!"

"The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." -George Washington

From George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

 Why I'm not voting for Scott Brown:
 -He's pro death penalty.
-He's pro torture.
-He doesn't believe that we need a public health care option.
-He's pro Patriot Act.
-I could go on, but there isn't much that appeals to me about his candidacy or policies.

Why I'm not voting for Martha Coakley:
While Martha Coakley was Massachusetts Attorney General, she supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.  Any candidate that believes we can abandon our Constitutionally protected freedoms in the interest of National Security won't get my support.  That's why I supported Alan Khazei and Mike Capuano in the primaries. 

Why I'm not voting for Joe Kennedy:
I admit, he's intriguing.  He supports HR 2943.  He's against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He has some interesting ideas about economic reform, but his anti-tax, anti government regulation platform is nonsense and will lead to financial anarchy far worse than anything we have ever seen.  Any casual student of American History knows that the golden age of Laissez-Faire Capitalism was full of booms, busts, shortages, instability and zero protections for average citizens.
Joe Kennedy is a little too Libertarian for my tastes.  His self proclaimed "Tea Party Candidate" label turns my stomach due to the racist un-American undertones of the 'Tea Party Movement'.  He doesn't get my vote.

-----

So where does that leave me?  I am going to vote, and I'll have to write someone in.  Most people I discuss politics with admonish me for throwing away my vote on third party candidates and write ins.  I completely disagree- I refuse to vote for a flawed Democrat or Republican candidate because the two party system fails to produce meaningful candidates.   We end up choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and these choices produce voter apathy and low turnout.  I always vote in Democratic primaries, and my candidates never win.  But I do show up as a progressive, unabashedly liberal voice in a party that is being frightened to the center and irrelevance.  And for the past 10 years I've voted along with Green Party candidates who best represent where I stand politically.

I register my dissent by not voting for establishment candidates that represent the worst of the two party system which has been co-opted by lobbyists, the military industrial complex, and financial conglomerates that are more concerned with profit margins than social justice and the well being of our planet.  If more people registered their dissent in this manner, perhaps we would have a more representative government.  After all, politicians hate it when we ignore them.  They can dismiss a few vocal protesters and ignore the apathetic non-voters.  But if we all unite and register our displeasure at the polls, then they will have to listen.

Please vote tomorrow.  If you don't like any of the candidate, write in an eligible citizen.  They have to be 30 years old and reside in Massachusetts.  All you need to do is write in their name and address, and you have registered your dissent, and that is far more powerful than staying home and doing nothing.

-----

"You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

Lazy Journalism, Part 3!

I took two weeks off- one because Jeff beat me to it, and another because "Z" apparently took the week off also.  But now I'm back with my Lazy Journalism series (Part 1, Part 2) on my favorite curmudgeon, Robert Z. Nemeth.

“I’m not beholden to special interests. Because I don’t owe anybody anything, I’m free to tell the truth and fight for what I believe in."  -Scott Brown, as told to Robert Z. Nemeth

Candidates tell the voters and reporters many things, some true, some false, some chock full of BS.  It's the job of responsible voters and reporters to do a little digging and find out if the candidate is telling the truth.  It's especially important for reporters to dig a little harder- after all, their articles are read and trusted by many readers.  When a reporter doesn't dig deeper, they do a disservice to their news organization and their readers. 

If Mr. Nemeth had anything better to do with his time, perhaps he could have turned up these few choice facts about Scott Brown's claim that he isn't beholden to any special interests.

FreedomWorks and Club For Growth have been mobilizing support for Mr. Brown.  (Article on ThinkProgress.org)  FreedomWorks is headed by former House Republican Dick Armey, author of the Contract For America back in 1994.  You can thank Mr. Armey for this summer's disruptive town meetings regarding health reform.  FreedomWorks has been the chief architect of the angry and divisive tone of the town halls.  Instead of a true debate based on facts, we can thank FreedomWorks for displays such as these: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)  Club For Growth is a Wall Street PAC that lobbies for influence and bailouts from Washington.  Candidate Brown claims he is opposed to future stimulus bills, despite the fact that he accepts money from firms that benefited from the two stimulus bills.

OpenSecrets.org is a great website for tracking candidates and contributions to their campaigns.  Unfortunately, they only have numbers through 12/31/09.  It will be interesting to see the updated numbers for January, when all the attention on Scott Brown materialized.

The Office of Campaign and Political Finance has a partially updated website.  Scott Brown's last update was apparently in 2008???
-----
My favorite part of Mr. Nemeth's scribblings came in the paragraph regarding the recent failed underwear bomber.

"At a time when homeland safety is endangered due to an ultra-liberal mindset in Washington that at times appears to be more concerned about the rights of terrorists than the safety of Americans, the Senate needs a hard-liner on national security. Even before the Christmas Day attempt by an Islamic jihadist to destroy a Detroit-bound airliner with nearly 300 people aboard, Scott Brown, a lieutenant colonel with close to 30 years of service in the National Guard, expressed concern about flawed security measures and the apparent breakdown of the command structure. He said authorities should have recognized the warning signs before an officer described as a Muslim fanatic murdered 13 military personnel at a Texas Army base in November, just as they should have prevented the “underwear bomber” from boarding an airplane. "

I think the same could be said for the summer of 2001 when the Cheney/Bush Administration along with the CIA, FBI and NSA missed out on the largest terror attack on U.S. soil.  Eight years later we have the Department of Homeland Security, a Cheney/Bush creation that should be the focus of Mr. Nemeth's criticism, not the candidacy of Martha Coakley or the Obama Administration. 

Perhaps Mr. Nemeth believed Rudy Giuliani a few weeks ago when he claimed that "We had no domestic terror attacks under Bush."  (In a stunning coincidence, Rudy "9/11" Giuliani recently campaigned with Scott Brown.  With 'independent' allies like that, can we really trust Mr. Nemeth's candidate to keep us safe?  Did Scott Brown denounce the Cheney/Bush Administration when Richard Reid tried to blow up his shoe on an airliner?
------
I'll end with this chestnut tossed in near the end of Mr. Nemeth's column:

"She hardly displayed a profile-in-courage by refusing to debate her opponent one-on-one, insisting on the presence of a nonentity who has no chance of getting elected."

 That nonentity is a candidate who gathered enough signatures as an independent candidate to appear on the ballot for this election.  Having that sort of organization and dedication should guarantee Joe Kennedy's appearance in the debates.  This is a democracy where any citizen can run for office, regardless of party affiliation.  I would think that Mr. Nemeth would encourage candidates like Joe Kennedy- after all, Mr. Nemeth constantly hopes for an 'independent' voice to guide us.  Apparently Mr. Nemeth's has a dictionary where Independent = Republican.

Repetitive Redundancy.

The T&G also ran two articles about the Senate campaign side by side.  The Brown article was cut and pasted from Globe reporters Matt Viser and Andrea Estes, and the Coakley article  was by T&G reporter John J. Monahan.  Both articles used essentially the same talking point from the Coakley camp at the same spot in each article.  The effect was even more jarring in print, seeing that they were placed right next to each other.  


From the Globe article:

“Let’s be clear: I stand with Main Street ... It should be clear to voters that I stand with them, with taxpayers — not with big CEOs looking to line their pockets.”

From the T&G article:

“Scott Brown is going to stand up for Wall Street. … I am going to stand up for Main Street. I am going to stand with taxpayers when I say we want our money back.”

Every day the quality of the T&G slides farther downhill.  Most articles are cut and pasted from the Globe, the Times or the AP.  Prices have gone up, content has gone down, and they wonder why it isn't a profitable business anymore.  I'm really enjoying the new space saver- the Sports section no longer lists the complete standings for the NBA or NHL.  They only list the division the Celtics and Bruins play in.

Salon.com had an article about Clinton's visit.  The author Joe Conanson also slipped up, stating that:

 "Moreover, Coakley had endorsed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid during the Massachusetts primary, defying the entire Democratic establishment in the state (including Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Gov. Deval Patrick) that had backed Obama."

Jim McGovern endorsed Hillary Clinton.   I wonder if he was the unnamed congressman from this quote:

"“I think she can pull this out,” said a Democratic Congressman who showed up in Worcester."