Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.
...Martha Coakley. Although it's close. If I had my druthers (and druthers are hard to come by, what with the economy and all), I would rank the Dems as follows:
1) Khazei
2) Coakley
3) Capuano
While I like Khazei the best, despite some high profile endorsements, he's not going to win (note: I don't want to get into the whole 'pragmatism' thing; the issue is how does your vote get you closest to where you want to be). So for me, it's between Coakley and Capuano.
Capuano has a lot going for him: he is a reliable liberal vote, and he's very good at securing local funding (people seem to forget that about Kennedy). But he does have some unsavory ties to the same lobbyists that back Rep. Murtha.
Coakley's not perfect: her early career as a prosecutor was a little too political for my taste. On the other hand, as attorney general, she did a good job going after Wall Street and the aftermath of Big Shitpile.
For me it was a toss-up, until the Stupak forced pregnancy amendment came to the fore. It wasn't that Capuano initially said he would vote for a healthcare bill with Stupak in it--there's an argument to be made for that (although I don't agree with it). It was his sneering response to Coakley's statement that she wouldn't vote for it: Capuano might have well as said, "Those silly emotional wimminz with their vaginas." While Capuano backpedaled furiously (and is still doing so), what this showed to me was the typical Democratic capacity to zig when you should zag.
For all I know, Coakley only got this issue right because she's a pro-legal and safe abortion woman--she might very well be just as clueless on other issues (although as AG, she seems to get the anger towards Wall Street). I'm sure Capuano would be fine, but we need Democrats with better instincts. That, and Capuano's lobbying ties, make me give the slight nod to Coakley.
Politics
Comments
Your thought processes are about the same as mine on all the issue you bring up here. I agree with what you posted and I am going out right now to vote for Coakley.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 8, 2009 10:08 AM
Pt on Khazei may be true but I do know they have a highly sophisticated targeting operation ... could make it interesting ...
Posted by: Justin | December 8, 2009 11:44 AM
I did a bit of a Nader Shuffle. I like Coakley well enough and she's pretty much got a lock on the seat, but Khazei is closer to my borderline-socialist politics. Since I figured Coakley can't lose, I voted Khazei.
Posted by: Brian X | December 8, 2009 6:22 PM
It looks like Coakley won with 47%, Capuano with 27% and Khazei with 13% and Pagliuca 12%.
January will be Coakley (who got 230,000) votes Vs Brown (who got 100,000 votes).
I think it is hilarious that Pagliuca spent millions of his own money and comes in fourth.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 8, 2009 9:42 PM
Not living in Massachusetts, I didn't have a dog in this fight. However, I do have a problem with Ms. Coakley in that, when whe was a county prosecutor, she declined to prosecute Cardinal Law for his involvement in the priest sex scandals. Even Bill O'Reilly said at the time that Law should be in jail for his covering up actions.
Posted by: SLC | December 9, 2009 12:01 PM