Open Letter to John Walsh, Chairman MA Democratic Party

The Democrats’ problem – and the reason why Coakley may well lose on Tuesday – is that the they are unable and/or unwilling to effect the change that Americans had expected from them when they voted for them in ’06 and ’08. But this fact is not making it into public discourse because the Democrats and Republicans are both invested in other narratives.

Progressives have to work harder to get this fact into public discourse for the good of progressivism and, frankly, for the good of the Democratic Party, which is failing politically because it has lost its way and has turned off far too many voters.

If Democrats are going to reenergize the base between now and November, they’re going to have to fight harder to achieve real reform and deliver on the change they promised, which is what most Americans want.

the whole story

OPINION: Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate:

[...]

After engaging in more than 10 debates and forums in the primary, she has built a barrier between herself and voters, using unreasonable demands to limit statewide live TV debates to one.

Her insistence on having Libertarian candidate Joseph L. Kennedy at all debates was cloaked in altruism but was really gamesmanship that denied voters the chance to see an important side of the candidate.

Her actions were cynical, nakedly political and completely counter to her desire to portray statesmanship.

There are many competencies a successful senator must demonstrate. Central to all of them is the ability to discourse with others in groups and individually.

Given that Coakley has never held an elected legislative office, voters must infer what her strengths and weakness are from whatever evidence she supplies. In this phase of the election, the evidence has been far too scant for our liking. The majority of the voters still don’t really know how Coakley will comport herself in Washington. Just as importantly, they do not have a sense as to how she will relate to and with her constituents.

Crockley, the republican-lite candidate has already had a meeting with Health care industry (I’m sure Brown has too) — so, maybe many democratic voters are wondering if she’s had a meeting with the DLC/Military Industrial Complex as well — maybe to hand over that next war vote too?

What about the women of MA — she says she will vote for the Health care bill, this being before any of the Democratic leadership have said that the Stupak or Nelson amendment will be removed. So basically she is a candidate that is happy to hold women ransom to the anti-choicers of the party making health care insurance even worse for women.

And you think we have a message problem? Nah.

The only reason Coakley is in trouble is because Dems totally blew off their mandate from the public last year to kiss up to corporations this year.

The failure of Dems to live up to their promises - public option, no lobbyists writing legislation, no middle class tax increase such as health insurance excise, abortion access not more restrictions - or to even try to fight for them is central. HCR has become a complete train wreck; no public option but an individual mandate; middle class affordability because high deductibles will keep 1 in 5 from getting necessary medical procedures, no cost control.

Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil. Write-in Elizabeth Warren.

Vote for Alan Grayson, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders or Jim McGovern Tuesday. Coakley is no progressive, she's a lobbyists-loving Republican corporatist wrapped in blue.

According to the Boston Globe, nearly half of Americans polled believe that Barack Obama is not living up to his campaign promises.

Nearly half of the Americans surveyed said Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority had some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country’s future.

More than a third saw the president as falling short of their expectations, about double the proportion saying so at the 100-day mark of Obama’s presidency in April. At the time, 63 percent said the new president had accomplished a “great deal’’ or a “good amount.’’ The percentage saying so in the recent poll dropped to 47 percent.

Although the article does not mention the loss of left-wing support as reason for the drop-off, choosing instead to focus on right-wing discontent, the overall attitude indicated by surveys is that he is either incapable or unwilling to make good on public expectations of change away from the institutionalized horrors of the Bush-Cheney regime.

The signs are everywhere that at least one chamber of Congress will revert back to Republican rule, though the public is unlikely to notice the difference. Obama really shot himself in the foot by raising people’s expectations without having any intention of meeting them. No one thought he would be able to work miracles, and no one has claimed that he would end eight years of devastation overnight. But with a year now behind , Obama has not made even token efforts to undo the policies of the Bush-Cheney regime — and in some cases, such as government secrecy and illegal spying on Americans, he has exceeded them. The public is not stupid. We do not enjoy being lied to, used, taken for granted. And we will punish those who do so.

In the special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, the Patriot Act has become issue number one this week. A statement from candidate Martha Coakley in support of the Patriot Act’s programs of government spying against American citizens was uncovered at the beginning of the week. Coakley’s campaign still has not released a statement on its web site to explain her statements defending the Patriot Act. Her press office is trying to pretend the growing scandal of Coakley’s support for Bush’s spying programs just doesn’t exist.

martha coakley

In a debate tonight, however, Coakley could not avoid the subject. When confronted by rival Michael Capuano, Coakley put her foot in her mouth again. “The Patriot Act is about keeping people safe without violating civil rights,” Coakley said.

Here Coakley is again, in 2009, defending the Patriot Act. Hearing Coakley give this statement, we have to wonder whether she is completely ignorant of recent developments regarding the Patriot Act. Keeping people safe? Did she not watch Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in which it was revealed that only 0.39 percent (no, not 39 percent) uses of Patriot Act sneak and peek spying powers last year were used in cases connected to terrorism? Without violating civil rights? Has Coakley not heard the revelations today that the government has, just over the last year, and just from Sprint Nextel, made 8 million separate demands, likely under Patriot Act authority, for Americans’ private global positioning system (GPS) data?

Whether Martha Coakley is truly clueless about the Patriot Act, or is just using the illusion of ignorance to cover for a seething hatred of the constitutional rights of Americans under the Fourth Amendment, she is clearly the wrong choice to succeed Edward Kennedy.