Anonymous's blog

Gerald Amirault on WEEI (yes Coakley came up)

"When you're accused of something as heinous as child molestation, people are very reluctant to do anything.

And it takes years and years and years for the media to catch up with something like this. And once they did and once the Wall Street Journal starting taking an interest in my case, which is a very conservative law and order type of a newspaper, it kind of put up the antennas for everyone else ...

Republicans distort and exaggerate to manufacture controversy in Senate race

John McCormack of The Weakling Standard blogs about getting "shoved in to a metal railing" by a Coakley staffer Tuesday night after the fund raiser in DC.

Michael Graham exaggerates and distorts the incident reporting in The Corner Blog at the National Review that a "Coakley staffer" was "shoving" McCormack "to the ground" "and then repeatedly shoving him again and again." Who will tell Graham that 'repeatedly' and 'again and again' is redundant? Is Graham a simpleton or an a**hat? Don't answer that, I'm not done yet. Graham claims this incident is the turning point of the campaign.

But everything changed yesterday.

The pragmatism of voting your conscience for US Senate

"The debate basically cemented my extremely reluctant vote for Coakley, with hopes that either she grows into the job or that someone better beats her in the Democratic primary in two years."
- David Yamada 1/12/2010 9:46AM

I suspect a lot of liberals feel the way David Yamada does. I do but I come to a different conclusion about how I should vote. Follow me on this, I’ll explain.

A lot of liberals are extremely reluctant to vote for Coakley and they do so only by holding out hope that she would become a much better Senator than we have any evidence of or reason to believe. Yes ‘ouch’ but true in my estimation.