Vote Coakley Tuesday. Primary Coakley in 2012

Also, according to Open Secrets, the single highest sector of contribution to her campaign is from lobbyist firms; by a 6 to 1 margin over the next closest, which is the Democratic Party:
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors.php?cycle...

I honestly don’t care what she says she’s for and against; rhetoric is an insanely stupid measure by which to gauge a political candidate (case in point, Barack Obama). I care what her incentives look like to retain the office she’s gunning for, and what it would take to unseat her when it inevitably comes to that.

The only way it can be true that losing the MA seat to Scott Brown for two years will fundamentally dissolve the Democratic legislative agenda is if the Democratic Party really wants to pass “halfway good” legislation in the first place, and even at that it’s a red herring, because if they really wanted to push a “halfway good” agenda they could do so by ending the faux-filibuster, and/or ruling by majority by ending the filibuster entirely.

The election of Scott Brown will, at worst, give us two years to find a progressive to take his place, which won’t work at all if Coakley is elected, because there’s no possible way we’ll get any Democratic support to unseat her once she’s the incumbent. Democrats and Progressives would have an interest in seeing Brown unseated in two-years. If we want Coakley out, we’ll be going it alone, or working with the RNC.

I say, “at worst,” because while it’s possible the Democrats would move further right to secure Brown’s vote (or some other Republican’s) on a piece of legislation, it wouldn’t be because they had to (re: ending the filibuster), it would be because they have no problem moving right, and using Brown (or some other Republican… Olympia Snowe says,"Hi.") as cover; read: scapegoat. The only other scenario (assuming the sincerity of the Democratic agenda) is deadlock, and quite frankly with all I’ve seen the Democrats do in the last 3 years, deadlock would be a welcome respite.

The empirical reality is that the Democratic lead Senate is more interested in maintaining self-imposed procedural rules than pursuing a Democratic agenda. Quite literally the Democratic leadership is stating with its actions that the faux-filibuster is more important than healthcare reform, financial market reform, civil-liberties expansion, etc. Brown or Coakley doesn’t change that at all.

The idea that the election of Brown would get in the way of “halfway good” legislation is bankrupt, as it fatally supposes that there’d be a will to move “halfway good” legislation without him (or some other 41st Republican). At least with a Coakley loss today, there will be two years to find someone better, rather than being stuck trying to undermine the Democratic campaign machine when it comes time to unseat her.

Do you really think of Coakley as a strident and sure representative of your principles and values, because the only way you’re going to get rid of her down the road is by climbing in waste deep with the RNC. In short, a Brown victory buys us breathing room. A Coakley victory buys us a non-partisan corporatist; indefinitely.