Is Martha Coakley TRYING To Lose?

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on January 16, 2010

[tweetmeme]

That would be about the only way that I could explain this:

(Via Ben Smith.) Schilling points out–quite properly–that this is proof that Martha Coakley doesn’t know what is going on in Massachusetts. Does the home state of Red Sox Nation really want to elect a Senator who doesn’t know that Schilling is a Red Sox legend?

(Note that Andrew Sullivan’s takeaway lesson from all of this is that Barack Obama is awesome. Well, what does one expect from Sullivan anymore?)

Things are going badly enough for Coakley that even Greg Sargent–who is paid by the Washington Post to be a shill for Democrats–is forced to admit that an “absolutely brutal” mailed advertisement by the Massachusetts Democratic party on Scott Brown’s voting record is misleading (Sargent’s exact words are that “the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests,” which I guess is the closest that he will come to admitting that a Democrat is lying), and that “[t]he mailer could be related to the fact that internal Dem polling reportedly shows Coakley under-performing with less-affluent women.” Of course, Coakley is not the only person on the port side embracing dishonesty, but this ugly episode alone is enough to show anyone who is undecided about the race that she doesn’t deserve to represent the people of Massachusetts.

UPDATE: Showing how unbelievably deep in the tank he is, Andrew Sullivan justifies a vote for Coakley thusly:

It is until you realize the Democratic party organized this Congressional mess and the Coakley candidacy. And then, of course, there is the total, rigid opposition to any reform and any cooperation at all from the nihilist Republicans. Obama is president for three more years. He will survive. He may even prosper.

But this really would be a massive blow. To get this close and lose health insurance would embolden every enemy Obama has, from Netanyahu to Ailes.

That’s the only reason to vote for Coakley on Tuesday.

She’s a dreadful candidate, but this race is now a critical battle in the war to rescue the possibility of effective governance. If health reform dies, it will show just how broken the system is, just how impossible it is to effect even centrist reform in a Senate this paralyzed, how polarization has made compromise impossible, how the country’s profound problems are simply beyond the system’s reach. If this fails, what chance for any action on climate change? Or the debt? Or some movement toward a settlement in the Middle East?

(Emphasis mine.) The short version of this argument is as follows: “I, Andrew Sullivan, am now in favor of an Imperial Presidency, given that Barack Obama is the Imperial President in question. I am for anything that strengthens him. If anyone made a similar argument about the need to augment George W. Bush’s power by voting for Republicans friendly to Bush Administration domestic priorities, I would have savaged them on my blog not just for advocating the strengthening of George W. Bush, but also, advancing the ridiculous argument that [INSERT BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOMESTIC PRIORITY HERE] needs to be advanced because in the absence of such an advance, the Middle East peace process might fail.”

And yes, Sullivan really is that hypocritical.

  • http://www.facebook.com/syntheticzero Mitsu Hadeishi

    I think your comment is missing Sullivan's point, which is that he's talking about centrist policies, not whether or not Obama or Bush or any other president might or might not be strengthened. That is, he is saying Obama's policies are centrist; that we need some sort of health care reform, and that a Coakley loss would mean the likely derailment of the ability of our country to effect centrist change. The analogy with Bush isn't relevant because Sullivan concluded (after supporting Bush in the early going) that his policies were not conservative and not centrist. You might disagree with his point, but that is what he is saying, not “everything that Obama does is good just because he's Obama.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/syntheticzero Mitsu Hadeishi

    I think your comment is missing Sullivan's point, which is that he's talking about centrist policies, not whether or not Obama or Bush or any other president might or might not be strengthened. That is, he is saying Obama's policies are centrist; that we need some sort of health care reform, and that a Coakley loss would mean the likely derailment of the ability of our country to effect centrist change. The analogy with Bush isn't relevant because Sullivan concluded (after supporting Bush in the early going) that his policies were not conservative and not centrist. You might disagree with his point, but that is what he is saying, not “everything that Obama does is good just because he's Obama.”

Previous post:

Next post: