From the category archives:

Afghanistan

GOP Fears Democrats Will Stall Swearing-In if Brown Wins Mass. Senate Race

Massachusetts Republicans say they fear that if their candidate for U.S. Senate scores an upset victory in the special election next week, Democrats in the state and in Washington will drag out the certification process just long enough that he won’t be able to block health care reform.

State Sen. Scott Brown, who is challenging Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the seat once held by Ted Kennedy, is sounding the loudest alarm over that possibility.

Recent polling suggests Brown is closing in on front-runner Coakley. And if he does what once seemed impossible — beat a Democrat for the bluest of blue Senate seats — he is vowing to be the critical 41st vote against health care reform.

That means Brown could prevent Democrats from breaking a Republican filibuster against the overhaul and, in his words, “send it back to the drawing board.”

Brown told Fox News on Tuesday that he’s concerned Democrats will stall the certification process if he wins, so that the U.S. Senate can approve the health care reform bill before he gets there.

“When I heard … the machine, not only locally but nationally, is trying to manipulate the process and make sure that if I’m elected, a duly elected senator, I can’t be seated in an effort to vote on this important piece of national legislation, it made me almost sick to my stomach,” Brown said.

The Boston Herald reported over the weekend that, according to a source, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin’s office plans to wait until Feb. 20 to certify the race.

Please Read More Here…

It’s the people’s seat, and it’s up for grabs

The policy differences between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown were as clear during last night’s debate as they have been throughout this short special-election campaign.

Coakley supports ObamaCare, opposes the war in Afghanistan, and favors higher taxes on the wealthy. Brown is against the health care legislation, backs the president’s surge in Afghanistan, and wants across-the-board tax cuts à la JFK. Coakley is an EMILY’s List prochoice hard-liner; Brown condemns partial-birth abortion and is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Coakley has no problem with civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Brown thinks it reckless to treat enemy combatants like ordinary defendants.

But the most striking thing about the debate was not that the very liberal Democrat and the not-especially-conservative Republican disagreed on the issues. It is that they are both viable candidates in a race too competitive to call. In Massachusetts!

Please Read More Here…

Kerry Launches Late Money Push for Coakley in Race for Kennedy’s Senate Seat

Sen. John Kerry is rushing to the aid of Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy, making a last-minute fundraising and get-out-the-vote push as her Republican challenger closes in.

State Attorney General Coakley seemed to have a lock on the race going in. But with the special election one week away, recent polling suggests GOP state Sen. Scott Brown could have a shot at not only winning the longtime Democratic seat but breaking the party’s filibuster-proof majority in Washington.

In a bid to prevent this nightmare scenario for Democrats, Kerry, the state’s senior senator, has contributed his e-mail list of 3 million people to the Coakley campaign. According to an aide, he’s sent out four e-mails to drive up turnout and fundraising. And he plans to campaign for Coakley alongside former President Bill Clinton Friday in Kerry’s first public appearance since his hip replacement surgery a week ago.

“This is our wake-up call,” Kerry said in an e-mail that went out Tuesday seeking to drum up $225,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Coakley’s behalf. “Polls in Massachusetts are tightening, and one even shows a dead heat in the fight to keep Ted Kennedy’s seat in the hands of a Democrat who will fight and vote for jobs, health care, clean energy and mainstream values.”

He was referring to a Public Policy Polling group survey that showed Brown leading Coakley 48-47 percent. A separate poll from the Boston Globe showed Coakley up 15 points, but Republicans in Massachusetts are buoyed by the sheer possibility that Brown is within striking distance.

Please Read More Here…

Dems paying union workers to hold signs for Coakley?

Coakley to Fundraisers: ‘If I Don’t Win, 2010 Is Going to Be Hell for Democrats.’

One of the Campaign Spot’s multitude of spies — yes, we have a separate Directorate of Intelligence — infiltrated Martha Coakley’s fundraiser in Washington, D.C., tonight.

My spy passes along word that Coakley herself fired up the crowd with this inspiring line: “If I don’t win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race.”

Her defeat was also described as “Waterloo for health care.”

Please Read More Here…

Coakley: There Are No More Terrorists in Afghanistan

Coakley Dodges Question About Her ‘No Terrorists’ Claim.

A Coakley thug roughs up a reporter outside of a Coakley fundraiser at a Capitol Hill bar.

Ayla Brown ‘completely offended’ by Martha Coakley’s attack

“American Idol” starlet Ayla Brown morphed into campaign pit bull yesterday for GOP dad Sen. Scott Brown as she tore into Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley for plunging the U.S. Senate race into the gutter.

“Martha Coakley’s new negative ad represents everything that discourages young women from getting involved in politics, and as a young woman, I’m completely offended by that,” said the 21-year-old Brown. “She even spelled Massachusetts wrong in her original ad which is very embarrassing, I must say as a young woman.”

The former Idol contender and Boston College senior sought to further boost her father onto the national political stage as the race intensified amid polls showing it tightening.

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Mission Impossible

The commander in chief’s December 1 lecture at the U.S. Military Academy has to go down in history as one of the strangest presentations ever offered by a war-time president. The robotically-delivered address is defended by administration officials as the culmination of a carefully thought-out “strategy review,” in which Obama proffered the “rationale” for deploying additional troops and explained “The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Unfortunately, it failed to do any of this.

Though he was standing before West Point’s Corps of Cadets, the president’s remarks were devoid of strategic vision, lacking any definition of victory and empty of the rhetoric elected leaders employ to rally democratic people to a cause requiring the sacrifice of blood and treasure. The speech did, however, provide another Obama “first.” Giving the enemy a timetable for withdrawing American troops while simultaneously committing additional combat forces to a war zone is unprecedented. No commander in chief has ever done such a thing before — because it makes no sense from either a political or military perspective.

Uncertain Trumpet

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

We shall never surrender — unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on “the need to maintain balance in and among national programs” and then insist that “we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”

The quotes are from President Obama’s West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was — a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.

Which made his last-minute assertion of “resolve unwavering” so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” On Tuesday night, he defined “what’s at stake” as “the common security of the world.” The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?

Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }