Could be running as a female sucks. They show emotion they get labeled as weak. They don’t show emotion they get labeled as cold. I think men are given a lot more leeway because being male they are by default ‘strong’ and showing emotion is ‘character’
The two candidates’ personalities are mostly a red herring in my opinion. In most years everyone would be apathetic about the race and Martha Coakley would win easily.
The problem is that lots of people seem to be getting cold feet about universal health care at the moment (especially older folks who are doubly afraid of losing Medicare somehow) and they are using this race to express that frustration. Those people are absolutely coming out the woodwork. Scott Brown may be in the right place/right time but he should not get a swelled head over it - it’s nothing to do with him personally.
(Irrelevant aside - Martha Coakley is at least lucky she didn’t go to Harvard. The Harvard thing makes some people in MA insanely resentful. Just too close to home I guess.)
Just because they’re Catholic doesn’t mean that they actually have any regard for every point of Catholic dogma. Many Massachusetts Catholics are pro-choice and/or pro-same-sex-marriage. I’d imagine that the ones that are opposed to rape victims having access to emergency contraception are a tiny minority and weren’t going to be voting Democrat anyway.
I’m saying that Oakley is politically tone def on this issue. The MA electorate aren’t Vulcans.
Oh, you’re quite the proxy for a MA voter all right!
We’ll see.
This isn’t about anyone being opposed to access to emergency contraception. It’s about the long arm of the law requiring that every medical worker be prepared to offer that medication, regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
Umm, you do know that Catholic doctrine is against any form of contraception, right?
Well that and that every medical facility also be prepared to offer that medication even if that facility is operated by a religious group that oppose it. (Yes, quite a few hospitals around here are run by the catholic church. (Caritas Christi system for example.)
I didn’t get that sense at all. This should be a very safe Dem seat and the fact that it’s close is very worrying.
I don’t know much about Coakley though I would be interested to hear what people who know her think about her. What about her support for the Amirault conviction? Good, bad or indifferent?
I assumed that he said that because of your misspelling of Schilling. While the bloody sock made him a legend, his sainthood has not yet been conferred. Now, if Ted Williams were still alive, you can bet that both sides would be clamoring for his endorsement.
Calling Schilling a Yankees fan was just flat-out stupid.
Yeah, I just don’t see that ensuring that rape victims have access to uniform standards of care, including MAP, regardless of the religion of those treating them is all that controversial here. After his amendment was defeated, Brown voted for the bill himself. Coakley isn’t that incompetent, she knows that Brown’s position plays better with Republicans than it does with moderates around here, that’s why she’s mentioning it.
What in Brown’s amendment would prevent that from happening? This was about letting medical workers opt out and letting someone else opt in, not about blocking access.
What’s wrong with that? How can any intelligent person have a problem with that? If they don’t want to follow the job requirements, they need to find a different line of work.
Delayed access is just as bad as blocked access, and nobody who would deny emergency medical treatment has any business being licensed to work in an ER. No way in hell should medical workers be able to “opt out” of giving emergency services. It’s just that simple. They have no right to impose their religion on anyone else, especially when doing so endangers them
They’re not imposing their religion on anyone else. They’re refusing to do something that violates their religious beliefs.
Then they need to find a line of work that doesn’t require them violate their religious beliefs (and it damn well does impose on others, since they’re impeding the rights of others). It is harmful to have such people working in emergency rooms.
Intelligent or dumb, would you rather have
a) A clinic that doesn’t offer MAP, contraception and abortions
b) No clinic at all
There’s no C or D in my question, by the way.
Actually, there is a C. A law that says every clinic must provide the MAP. Everybody wins.
It’s not particularly valid to try to exclude a real world alternative by fiat, by the way.
First of all, they’re not impeding the rights of others. You don’t have a right to have a doctor prescribe you whatever medication you want.
Secondly, they’re not even keeping them from getting the medication. The amendment that Brown supported specifically says that if the doctor has a moral objection to prescribing the morning after pill, the hospital has to provide the woman with a referral to some place that will give her the morning after pill at no additional cost to her.
It’s not unreasonable, it’s consistent with Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, and it’s less onerous on the woman than the proposed health care bill, which has a similar but stricter provision, which Coakley supports.
Everyone around where I live (Boston) is saying the senate election’s too close to call. I’m inclined to agree, however I also think that it’s nearly impossible to predict how things will swing when the polls open in a few hours. Bad weather is predicted,–snow, cold–not good for the Dems.
This doesn’t mean Coakley’s gonna lose. She has her problems, however, some of them related to her personality, others to her professional career. I despise the woman because of her work in the Middlesex D.A.'s office. It’s a personal matter, and that’s me. Nor have I ever met the woman. She may well be, in person, charming and very nice, but I’ll never vote for her. Could there be others like me? Ah, there’s the rub! If there are, they,–we–will come crawling out of the woodwork today. Bad news for Coakley and the Dems; nothing to do with ideology. Me, I live less than half a mile from a polling place.
Still, the election could be a major surprise either way. If Coakley wins big, in the Kennedy fashion, with a landslide, over 55% of the vote, which one cannot rule out, it’s no big deal, and the race will be forgotten the next day. However, if it’s 54% or less, it will be regarded, fairly or not, as a vote of no confidence for Obama from a blue state even though his candidate won.
This is a sticky election. All Scott Brown has to do is win with more than 1% and he’ll be the most talked about politician in the country; his picture will be everywhere; he’ll make the news show rounds on the weekend. All the GOP has to do is give the Dems a run for their money, I’d say hold Coakley well below the 55% landslide margin,–for a ballpark let’s say 52-48% for Coakley–and you’ll hear commentators saying things like she’s “skating on thin ice”, has “a way to go” to win a full six year term two years down the road. In other words, they’ll be lying in wait for her to slip up. It’s a mean world, but that’s the way it is. To put the matter in a broader context, nationally speaking, Coakley has to win big over Brown or else. It has to be a blowout for the Dems or tongues down in DC will be wagging, and they won’t stop till the November elections.
Scott Brown Nude in Cosmo – Senator Scott Brown Nude Photo Well his clothes budget would be small.