At this point, I’ve almost given up caring about who wins. I just want the damned campaign phone calls to stop already. We’re getting multiple calls every day from both campaigns and third parties who have an interest in either candidate winning. It wouldn’t surprise me if we had 10 or more calls yesterday.
I find Scott Brown highly irritating with his “independent thinker” routine. He’s not an independent thinker at all, based on his ads. He sounds like a typical conservative politician.
Is Scott Brown’s college basketball playing / American Idol semi-finalist daughter campaigning for him at all?
I’m not a basketball fan, I’m not an American Idol fan, and I am personally far enough to the left that I consider the Democrats to be too conservative . . .
. . . and yet, she is a young woman who could suceed in getting me to subscribe to a wide variety of newsletters.
doorbell rings
“Good afternoon, I’m with the Scott Brown campaign and we need your support. Do you have a few minutes to discuss the upcoming election?”
Well, hello. Won’t you come in? I’ll fix us some coffee.
(Incidentally, I had never heard of this woman before this Thread sent me to wiki to read up on her father.)
I’m starting to think we’ve got too many analysts out there with too much time on their hands. Sure, this is a very interesting race, but all the analysis I’ve seen over the last few days (and I’ve seen LOTS) is based on that one poll I cited in the OP. I’d like to see some more polling data from different sources to see just how close this race really is.
Yowza, indeed!
Not in person, at least not much, but she and her sister have done radio spots complaining that Coakley is being mean to their Daddy.
Brown himself has made ads complaining that Coakley’s ads are negative and have gone too far - but mainly she’s just called him a Republican and pointed out his voting record. He’s gone after the “business as usual Washington crowd spending all your money” as if enough people don’t remember the last decade. And, sadly, he may be right.
Right. That’s pretty much their ceiling, too, unless they appear reasonable in the nearly-extinct Northeastern Republican way. But that hasn’t happened lately.
If Brown wins, by however thin a margin, this will spell the certain doom of the Dems come the next election. If Brown loses by however thin a margin, this will spell the certain doom of the Dems come the next election. If Coakley crushes Brown, this will simply be another example of Democrat thuggery, the Democrat machine, and the liberal media…well, you know the rest.
Well that whole thing about Brown trying to prevent rape victims from getting treatment was pretty over the top. (Yes I know I know. (sarcasm on)Democrats are actually physically incapable of lying about Republican. They can’t do it and it can’t happen, it’s impossible.(sarcasm off))
Anyway here’s a link about it at some obviously right wing extremist site.
Well, when someone actually makes that argument in this or any other thread, I will personally cite your post to rebut it.
Not to defend the ad in question, which is clearly over the top, and could be called misleading if one wanted to be extremely generous, but Brown’s actual position, of allowing hospital staff to not inform rape victims of the morning after pill is pretty vile itself. I really don’t know why Coakley couldn’t just make an honest ad pointing that out. Maybe she’s taking advice from the Kerry Healy campaign and trying to throw “rape” and your opponents name together as much as possible. I think Healy lost by 23 points, so I don’t know why anyone would try to replicate their methods, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the Coakley campaign has even that much of a clue.
To provoke a denial, of course. To force Brown to deny something utterly repulsive by explaining that it was merely disgusting.
What did Brown do that was utterly repulsive?
I have no idea since the second paragraph of the ammendent says
That sounds to me that if you want to take a religious exemption you actually need to offer referals instead.
The ad suggested that Brown was throwing up roadblocks to any treatment of a rape victim, which would be, of course, utterly repulsive. The actual language merely suggests procedural delays with a hint of disapproval on the part of care givers, which is just about that last thing a rape victim needs. Perhaps nothing more than a minor additional insult for someone in a state of horror and humiliation, but disgusting, nonetheless.
Besides which, what is the point? What set of caregivers to rape victims have not already made such personal moral determinations? Is anyone in such a situation not aware that they may be asked to deliver emergency contraception? If one has some arcane theological objection to such treatment, they should not be in the rape emergency treatment facility to begin with, surely there are other useful things they might be doing?
So Mr. Browns amendment appears to free such an individual from performing actions they almost certainly would be excused from in advance, they wouldn’t be there in the first place. It might then fairly be seen as a meaningless gesture towards “pro-life” extremists, having no real effect but to burnish credentials. Merely disgusting.
Well, the point is they weren’t required to so until that particular piece of legislation was put forward.
You crazy Texans with your folksy humor! We’re talking about Massachusetts, here, which is heavily Catholic. Nothing “arcane” about standard Catholic theology.
No. The bill put forward would have required medical staff to provide info about the morning after pill. Brown sought to seek an escape clause for those whose religion conflicted with that requirement, while offering an alternative to the rape victim to be treated by others.
Frankly, I don’t like the government legislating treatment decisions like this. When you start doing that, you run into exactly this kind of problem.
While such simplistic views might be common amongst rural Texans, one is blessed to grow up in the shadow of Baylor University, home of the feared and dreaded Baylor Bears, and to bask in the sophisticated salons of Waco, “The Athens on the Brazos”. While we remain largely immune to post-modernist irony, many major advances in Baptist theology can be traced to Waco.
And we were quite aware of other faith traditions, there being any number of Catholics in Tyler, Kileen, and Bellmead. Jews were, of course, mostly in Temple.
Wow. New polling data from the Suffolk folks shows a double digit lead for Brown. Just hearing that now on MSNBC.
Another interesting tidbit-- I noticed that only one cable news outlet showed Obama’s address live yesterday. Guess which one? Fox. The other two were showing more Haiti coverage.
Well, I’m just guessing here, but my guess would be that Fox’s line on it was about Obama’s desperate, last-ditch effort to save his repudiated and wildly unpopular socialist agenda, so, yeah, I can see them featuring that. As for the rest of the main stream tedia, they probably considered it a matter mostly local. Or maybe it was simply an expression of human decency, though I am reluctant to make such a leap.
Well, ALL the news outlets are presenting it as a last ditch effort, but that’s a nice little “just so” argument. The idea that this is just a “local” matter is actually pretty funny, though. I’ll give a B for effort.
No doubt!
You can find any result you like in one poll or another.
Only one more day of robocalls … thank Og for Caller ID …
You can, of course, cite this “ALL the news outlets…”. I’ll take it as a given, of course, knowing your strictly non-partisan views, but others might want the reassurance. You know, just for the sake of formality…
