The more things change, the more they stay the same.
(an incoherent rant)
Whether it's the Democrat's ineptitude or (amazingly, in this state) the pure stupidity of voters - I'll leave that to the so-called pundits to decide - we find ourselves yet again going, "WTF?" at another election result.
There is, I suppose, a bit of a irony in the fact that the 2004 elections and today's special election have Massachusetts as a common link: it is because of John Kerry (D-MA) that we have the mess that we're in today. Had he not won (and then subsequently flubbed) the Democratic nomination for President, Democrats in Massachusetts would not have passed a law requiring a special election to replace a senator's unfinished term, thereby short circuiting the then-Republican governor's ability to appoint a Republican replacement.
If you ask me, the simple solution would be to change the rule to say that the replacement should come from the same party. I suppose that's politics for you: nothing is ever that simple. So instead, the Democrats changed the rule so that a replacement would be appointed while a special election would be held to replace him.
One supposes the thinking, as in 2004, was that there would be no way they'd lose. In 2004, their opponent started not one, but two wars, couldn't for the life of him pronounce "nuclear," and had a quote-of-the-day calendar in his honor. Which for most people would be great, not so much when those quotes are along the lines of, "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" And that was before "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"
And yet somehow, Kerry got labeled as a flip-flopper, had his Vietnam vet credentials questioned (despite the fact his opponent barely spent any time in the National Guard), and lost the race.
You'd think the Democrats would have learned their lesson and choose a candidate with more charisma.
Nope.
Meet Martha Coakley. Not only did Coakley have the charisma of Kerry, she seemed to have the brains of Bush.
Forget about the fact that she barely campaigned (only in the past two weeks when she realized she wouldn't cakewalk to Washington did we really start hearing about her). In the past week, Coakley: 1) called Curt Schilling, THE hero of the 2004 Boston Red Sox, a Yankee, 2) bombed horribly in a debate with Brown, 3) failed to help a reporter who'd tripped covering her campaign, and 4) claimed there was no point in meeting people on the campaign trail ("As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?").
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. What was once an insurmountable double digit lead became the Biggest Upset In U.S. History (or so the Faux News headline will say tomorrow).
Of course, there are other factors involved, such as the insane amount of ads we've seen here in Massachusetts, many likely funded by shadowy organizations of one party or another. What's crazier to me is how easily people believe these things; it's sad how easily the electorate can be turned into lemmings.
So yeah...I'm not sure whether it's the Democrat's stupidity (as Jon Stewart has pointed out, the Republicans managed to get their agenda passed without a super majority) or "the people's" stupidity that we're here now.
All's I know is that I'm tired. And that some "pundit" will try and explain it all tomorrow.
Whether it's the Democrat's ineptitude or (amazingly, in this state) the pure stupidity of voters - I'll leave that to the so-called pundits to decide - we find ourselves yet again going, "WTF?" at another election result.
There is, I suppose, a bit of a irony in the fact that the 2004 elections and today's special election have Massachusetts as a common link: it is because of John Kerry (D-MA) that we have the mess that we're in today. Had he not won (and then subsequently flubbed) the Democratic nomination for President, Democrats in Massachusetts would not have passed a law requiring a special election to replace a senator's unfinished term, thereby short circuiting the then-Republican governor's ability to appoint a Republican replacement.
If you ask me, the simple solution would be to change the rule to say that the replacement should come from the same party. I suppose that's politics for you: nothing is ever that simple. So instead, the Democrats changed the rule so that a replacement would be appointed while a special election would be held to replace him.
One supposes the thinking, as in 2004, was that there would be no way they'd lose. In 2004, their opponent started not one, but two wars, couldn't for the life of him pronounce "nuclear," and had a quote-of-the-day calendar in his honor. Which for most people would be great, not so much when those quotes are along the lines of, "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" And that was before "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"
And yet somehow, Kerry got labeled as a flip-flopper, had his Vietnam vet credentials questioned (despite the fact his opponent barely spent any time in the National Guard), and lost the race.
You'd think the Democrats would have learned their lesson and choose a candidate with more charisma.
Nope.
Meet Martha Coakley. Not only did Coakley have the charisma of Kerry, she seemed to have the brains of Bush.
Forget about the fact that she barely campaigned (only in the past two weeks when she realized she wouldn't cakewalk to Washington did we really start hearing about her). In the past week, Coakley: 1) called Curt Schilling, THE hero of the 2004 Boston Red Sox, a Yankee, 2) bombed horribly in a debate with Brown, 3) failed to help a reporter who'd tripped covering her campaign, and 4) claimed there was no point in meeting people on the campaign trail ("As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?").
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. What was once an insurmountable double digit lead became the Biggest Upset In U.S. History (or so the Faux News headline will say tomorrow).
Of course, there are other factors involved, such as the insane amount of ads we've seen here in Massachusetts, many likely funded by shadowy organizations of one party or another. What's crazier to me is how easily people believe these things; it's sad how easily the electorate can be turned into lemmings.
So yeah...I'm not sure whether it's the Democrat's stupidity (as Jon Stewart has pointed out, the Republicans managed to get their agenda passed without a super majority) or "the people's" stupidity that we're here now.
All's I know is that I'm tired. And that some "pundit" will try and explain it all tomorrow.