Posts Tagged ‘scott brown’

This is a really cynical post:

Politically this is going to be played up, international disaster relief is one of those truly bi-partisan things that the US does best and we are going to do it. The president and the Sec of State are going to get a lot of positive airtime concerning this crisis. That is not a bad thing, particularly if the relief is delivered promptly and effectively. We should be very pleased and proud that it happens. but in terms of cynicism, this is a political windfall for them both. Today on Morning Joe they are touching on this.

This will also give the media a chance to ignore some stories they don’t want to deal with, the health care back door deals, Harry Reid and Bill Clinton’s remarks, the foibles of Martha Coakley. The sec of state is unlikely going to be taking questions about her husband’s remarks and if anyone is as foolish to ask she will be able to turn it right around for dealing with something like this during a disaster.

Watch the Coakley campaign try to tie Pat Robinson to Scott Brown or press him to comment on it in the mistaken hope that any criticism of Robinson will hurt him among the right.

This also gives the president a perfect excuse not to intervene in Massachusetts, he is much too busy in the crisis.

Watch the banks and a lot of the companies who gave large unpopular bonuses throw money at the disaster relief and make sure it is publicized well.

One thing that will not get the press that it should will be how Americans will open up their wallets, slim as they are these days, to help out in Haiti. I wonder what Mr. Penn & Mr. Glover will have to say about that?

Ok that’s enough cynicism, go the the Anchoress for a good roundup and an excellent suggestion for your relief dollars.

After all President Obama is a Chicago Pol. A guy who acts like this is a perfect fit for the broadcast board of governors if you are going to do thing the Chicago way.

This guy has apparently apologized for what the Globe and the AP says is a “stumble

Can someone explain to me why Meehan claimed to have been “a little too aggressive” if McCormick only stumbled? I’d answer it myself but I have a house to pick up with company coming tomorrow.

Vote Brown.

Last night was game night and the game was D & D. We had almost the entire crew present much to our surprise. I thought I would see what the general consensus was concerning the election.

Going into the night, I expected one leaning Coakley vote 3 solid brown votes (including mine) 1 likely non-voter and 2 undecided.

When the subject came up, one thing was clear, Coakley is not popular, nobody in the room had a good word to say about her, however one person was very quiet.

When the subject of Brown one of the undecideds (the Marine) announced that he was no longer voting for Brown for two reasons:

1. my leaning Coakley voter said brown had “lied” about something, (I don’t know what) and the deal breaker.

2. George W. Bush endorsed Brown.

He also expressed total contempt for Coakley, it is very likely that our marine friend will stay will stay home.

The leaning Coakely voter is without question not voting Brown although he is a fiscal conservative. He had no good word for Coakley or frankly any pol. I would not be surprised to see him either stay home, If I had to bet the farm I’d say he is a Coakley voter.

The three solid Brown votes remain Brown votes, the undecided appears to be leaning Brown but not a person in that room other than me had no real interest in the election.

Make of that what you will.

stating in big letters that YOU (meaning us) can make educators and students a priority in Washington by voting for Martha Coakley came in the mail today.

Ironically it shows up on the very day that we discover she apparently can’t spellMassachusetts“.

Maybe she should run for Senator from Berkeley.

Vote Brown.